Why I'm skeptical of people who open carry.

I've been around for almost 65 years now, and have been a firearms owner and shooter for about 52 of those years. In that time, on the range and in the field, I have seen many, many people mishandle their firearms. I've crossed a number of people off my list of hunting partners, too, after they ignored safety rules while with me.

So, when I encounter someone I don't know doing open carry, I'm always wondering whether they're a good, safe owner, or a moron like so many I've encountered. I have no way of knowing. So, I tend to avoid being around strangers who are carrying whenever possible.

Maybe they're paragons of firearms safety. That's a possibility. Or, just maybe, they're like the guy who tried to hand my shotgun over the fence, barrel first. Or the guy who pointed a deer rifle at me as a joke in camp. Maybe the open carry guy is just another moron who hasn't a clue. Maybe they're like the guy in the Walmart in AZ. I have no way to know.

Random people with firearms make me a little uneasy. I've seen too many people who should never have a loaded firearm anywhere near them.

So, I keep my distance from people I don't know who are carrying.

...who misuse or abuse that right in any way.

PB

if people have the right to do it then there is nothing i can do. But if they abuse that they should get the max penalty.
You could say the same thing about driving.. ive been in the car with some people that make me uneasy when i see someone cross the line a little bit.. what can i do about that tho?

and I was surprised to see signs in all the bars that say "no firearms allowed."

Surprised, but after looking around at the patrons, I was glad!

It's probably more like 10%, but that's enough to make me leery of anyone I don't know who's carrying a holstered pistol. More than enough.

It's worse letting just anyone open carry.

amount of time. So far, no accidents of any note. I treat other drivers the same way I treat strangers who are carrying. I watch them closely and avoid them whenever I can.

and we don't "let" just anyone open carry.

those who are not otherwise disqualified from carrying period have the right to open carry.

some of them are idiots.

as soon as somebody can present DATA that society is at risk from open carriers, get back to me.

It's an idiotic policy pushed on a declining America and making it decline faster.

open carry is a manifestation of same.

it is not a POLICY any more than rosa parks sitting in the front of a bus was a POLICY

it is a way for people to exercise their rights under the 2nd amendment

You just compared yourself to Rosa Parks. Really? Rosa fucking PARKS?!

Let me clear this up for you:

Rosa Parks, as a black woman in the midst of segregated America, was quite truly a second-class citizen. She was barred from many places of business, forced to travel in very specific and separate ways, and forced to either use separate public services or sometimes no public services at all.

Now, I know what you're going to say: "Gun carriers face the exact same discrimination!"

So put down your gun, and then enjoy all the freedoms that Rosa Parks couldn't because she couldn't put down being black. And then BE VERY ASHAMED OF YOURSELF.

And now, to address your oversimplified quote of the Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Read that WHOLE sentence. Twice. Then tell me what it means to you.

i compared two civil rights issues.

that's the sign of an immature mind. you are unable to seperate the personal from the political. RKBA doesn't personally mean ANYTHING to me, in that carry laws have NO effect on ME. under federal law, i can carry MY gun concealed in any state in the country. i can *(and have) even carried on airplanes when doing extraditions

i am advocating for the rights of OTHERS, NOT me.

get it?

you clearly can't even READ.

as for the 2nd amendment, it does not say :"the right of a militia"

it mentions the militia in a prefatory clause. which was a common phrasing at the time, and i can cite other examples, if you so desire.

what it says is that the RIGHT is ... wait for it... OF THE PEOPLE... which is why it is an individual right

hth

then you would have compared RKBA to Civil Rights, and there would have been no need for you to mention specific people such as Rosa Parks. Of course, your argument would still be bunk due to the fact that the Civil Rights movement was about preventing people from being second-class citizens due to what color they were born as, and this is most certainly not.

As for your ad hom attempt to dismiss my argument based on your (weak) appraisal of my reading skills, I suggest you re-read the Second Amendment. You are looking at it through rose-colored glasses and seeing only what you want to see. The right IS given to the people, but only because those people have a responsibility to join a well-regulated militia in times of national crisis and defend this free state. So tell me, when was the last time we needed Minutemen?

you need to read the SCOTUS decision regarding Heller v DC which affirmed that RKBA is an individual right not a collective right. You sound like those idiots at the VPC and the Brady Bunch

and finish with the statement that if you want to see an idiot on the subject, you need only look in the mirror. After all, only an idiot would come to a progressive board and state that one split SC decision by a highly conservative court should be respected as if it were the law of some God.

that have to do with Heller v DC

is in fact an individual right unrelated or connected to militia, surely you aren't saying that ALL of the court is conservative? Read the decisions, both majority and minority, it was unanimous, your interpretation is wrong.

It was one Bill Clinton (in his biography) who surmised that Gore lost because of his support of the disastrous Assault Weapons Ban. Clinton recalled a meeting with Texas Congressman Jack Brooks (one of the leading progressives in Congress as the time) who counseled the president NOT to support the AWB as this could spell the defeat of many lib congresspersons, including himself. Clinton didn't follow that advice, and helped to ensure Gore's defeat. (Gore didn't even carry his home state; had he done so, he would not have to have worried about Florida or hanging chads.)

You are clearly not up on the issues surrounding the Second Amendment, and are instead "leading" with your emotions. 2A IS a civil right, and a liberal issue. You need to understand this.

SCOTUS decisions are the law of the land, not the law of some "God."

That the court ruled the 2nd as an individual right. The bill of rights was a guarantee of individual liberties against an overreaching government. It represented a break from the traditional position that rights were granted by government to the people.

the constitution does not GIVE rights. the bill of right doesn't GIVE rights.

it RECOGNIZES rights, and restricts the govt. from interfering with them

your knowledge of constitutional principles could fit in a thimble and you talk like an authoritarian talks about subjects, not citizens

and suddenly my knowledge of the constitution is so much more lacking than yours?

Have you ever even HEARD of a logical fallacy?

And tell me this, if the constitution doesn't give, enumerate, or otherwise delegate rights to people, states, and the federal government, then where exactly do they come from?

and const law

we are citizens, not subjects

your language is consistent with the latter, not the former

this is not a "one word poorly" thing

in post after post, such as your misunderstanding of heller, you demonstrate this

hint: research first, THEN form an opinion

i used to be pro gun control. my work as a firefighter and a cop and research and discussion changed my mind

maybe there is still hope for you

it;s the thing with feathers

and you continued your ad hom, which doesn't constitute an argument.

i spend so much time correcting your factual errors etc. i can't even keep up

quote it

And you should be more careful accusing others of lacking reading comprehension in future.

i majored (undergrad) in philosophy with an emphasis on analytical reasoning

hth

cue: ad hominem :)

Now where's the answer to that question?

yes,i understand what a logical fallacy is

if you are referring to the SECOND question you asked:
"And tell me this, if the constitution doesn't give, enumerate, or otherwise delegate rights to people, states, and the federal government, then where exactly do they come from?"

see: natural law


and see: "we are endowed by the Creator with certain rights..." (quoting from memory_)

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.<1> The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is man-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.<2> In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.

Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,<3> and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

see: natural law


and see: "we are endowed by the Creator with certain rights..." (quoting from memory_)

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.<1> The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is man-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.<2> In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.

Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,<3> and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

as soon as you or anyone else prove the existence of a "Creator", or show clear proof that "natural law" is anything more than a hypothesis, then you can make your case that these rights are ingrained, and not given.

Until then, the rights you have in this or any other country, regardless of what governmental structure that country has, are enumerated and delegated to you by the government of that country. Your only option to avoid this, aside from giving the proofs listed above, is an anarchy.

you can substitute evolution or some other very non-anthropomorphic process

the point is that no person with constitutional understanding says the amendments GIVE rights to people

you could admit you are wrong, or keep dodging

i predict the latter

You're telling me that evolution can somehow be responsible for imbuing rights to people? Does it imbue animals with rights? What are they?

Do you have substantiation that NO ONE with "constitutional understanding says the amendments GIVE rights to people"? I can wait...

that's essentially how sagan described it

regardless, the texts of our founding documents are clear

government does NOT give rights to people

it RECOGNIZES them

and again, you will do anything but admit you were wrong

try this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States

and type in the search term "recogni" (so you get "recognize" "recognition" etc.)

if this doesn't work for you feel free to search other legal analyses and compare.

try to find texts/cases that mention the bill of rights GIVING rights.

they are slim to none

the bill of rights does not GIVE rights. it recognizes them

it's pretty sad that you have all these strong opinions about the constitution, but clearly have little to no understanding of it

that's not meant as an insult. but you clearly do NOT understand it. you were wrong on heller, and you don't understand the fundamental concepts of 'recognizing' rights and the structure of our beliefs in this country

Now that you see you can't claim "natural law" or that evolution imbues anyone with rights you try to claim that the founding documents of our nation are clear.

First, if they were clear, the Supreme Court wouldn't have so many cases to hear.

Second, the word "recognize" that you are so fond of is not mentioned ONCE in the text of the Constitution (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html) or the text of the Bill of Rights (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/text.html)

Third, repeating your hypothesis as supporting fact doesn't constitute an argument, nor does simply stating that I do not understand the Constitution. Prove your point with facts.

Did you actually just say that the Government GIVES us our Rights?

And you expect anyone here to take you at all seriously?

Again, MASSIVE FACEPALM.

i can only take so much of his/her constitutional ignorance

over and over and over again

like this is CONTROVERSIAL? the concept that the bill of right RECOGNIZES rights?

i need to CITE this for him/her/it?

i've had it.

either this is a world class trolling attempt or it really is this ignorant of the constitution and our nation's founding documents

But that is a subject for another thread/forum.

:boring:
See me when you're willing to back up your assertions.

it's MY assertion that the bill of right recognizes rights and doesn't GIVE rights.

seriously.

amazing

Under your interpretation, it would make no sense whatsoever.

ninth- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

tenth- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What unenumerated rights are powers are there, in your interpretation?

If the ninth and tenth amendments were so clear and "natural law" were really the way in which we were always supposed to interpret the Constitution, then the 13th and 19th amendments would never have been necessary.

Have fun, though, interpreting the Constitution in whatever ways you see fit. I find myself uninterested at this point.

Both those amendments provide that the government must enforce natural rights, regardless of sex or skin color (well, the latter mostly in the 14th & 15th.)

Seriously though, do you totally ignore the concept of unenumerated rights? I mean, since the government doesn't "grant" them to the people, do they not exist? *snort*

Perhaps you should petition the UN to have them do away with the International Bill of Human Rights, since they have no governmental power by which to "grant" anything. Oh, and please call for the abolition of Human Rights Watch.

Some see it as the solution while others see it as the problem , and it will come to blows .

Why not on the side of liberty. If proving a Creator exists is necessary, in your mind, to show that natural rights exist where would you suggest rights come from? The biggest and strongest, and to hell with the little guy? No thanks. We ought to err on the side of liberty, it is the only humane thing to do, whether you believe in a Creator or not.

I absolutely have rights that are RECOGNIZED and PROTECTED by the BoR. The Government grants me nothing. Look carefully at the wording of the individual rights. Shall not be infringed. Congress shall make no law. Each of these tell the Government what IT may NOT do. They don't tell me what I MAY do.

I have additional rights, just as a living creature, that aren't even enumerated therein. If you try to kill me, I have a right to kill you in self defense. You might disagree, but even a lowly rat inherently lives by this rule, even if it does not comprehend it, and cannot reason about it.

When determining if something is a right or not we have to ask the question of whether the action can be taken without harming another person or their property. Failing this, it may still be a right if the action is taken in response to the aggression of another against our person or property.

If we can take the action without harm, we have a right to take that action. If we cannot, there is a reubttable presumption that there is no such right. For example, I can own a firearm, as my ownership of that object harms no one. I can carry that firearm, as it harms no one. I CANNOT use that firearm to harm someone or his property, because I, generally, have no right to do so. If the use of the firearm to harm a person or his property is in response to his attempt to harm me or my property, I have a right to use it to defend myself against such attack. Any such response to attack, though, must be at a level appropriate to the attack. For example, you cannot shoot someone for, say, throwing tiny rocks at you, or merely trespassing on your property. In these cases, you would be within your rights to eject the person from your property and remove his ability to thrown tiny rocks at you. Doing more would cause you to rise to the level of aggressor.

To suggest that the rights of individuals come from statute is absurd on its face. Individuals predate the state, and thus must be the ones to delegate POWERS, not RIGHTS to it. One has no right to give the power to take rights away from others, either, since that is aggressing against a person, and thus cannot be a right.

Lex mala, lex nulla.

given, delegated or otherwise ordained in the Bill of Rights. This stems from the philosophy of "natural law." Where you see "powers herein granted" is in the ARTICLES, referencing the Congress, the "executive power," and the "judicial power." From there on out, in the AMENDMENTS, it's "Congress shall make no law...," "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...," etc.

In short, the rights enumerated in the Amendments are pre-existing, in accordance with the very wording of the Amendments.

of the 2nd Amend has been debunked so many times that I refuse to take it up again, and Heller VS DC laid your interpertation to rest so deal with it, you sound just like those idiots at the VPC and the Brady Bunch, gun control is a dead issue and you controllers lost now move on

You're trying to tell me that a 5-4 USC decision by one of the most conservative courts in history that overturned years of legal precedent is something that we should all just "deal with?"

How'd you deal with Bush v. Gore, huh?

again, you are just looking MORE AND MORE foolish

do i need to provide you a cite?

again?

Are you really that lacking in research skills?

ALL 9 JUSTICES AGREED THAT RKBA WAS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, YOU REALLY ARE LOOKING REALLY FOOLISH NOW

I quote Justice Stevens: Clearly this man does not agree that the RKBA is an un-restrictable individual right.

we said that all 9 justices agreed that RKBA is an individual right not a collective right, I know I've read it.

So your earlier attack that my reading of the Second Amendment has been "debunked" is now answered by one of the Justices involved in your apparent favorite case.

before the ruling all 9 justices agreed that it was an individual right not a collective right, the disent came as to whether or not DC could legally enact a total ban on handguns but you just keep believing what you want to. BTW the gun control crowd has lost and SCOTUS is about to stick a fork in it with their McDonald v Chicago, what that ruling says is that the 2nd Amend applies to the states as well as to Feds

That's the word YOU'RE looking for.

My quote above shows that Stevens most definitely disagrees with you. Either you are lying, you are misinformed, or you are calling Stevens a flip-flopper without any substantiation.

I said that all 9 justices agreed THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS was an individual right not a collective right, the dissent was whether DC could ban handguns

Closely.

but you obviously want to believe what you want to believe so I'm done with this but I'm sure you'll hear from others on this forum who will agree with Paulsby and myself but you won't believe them either so I will say goodby to you

The excerpt provided in #96 shows clearly that Stevens' opinion on this subject differs greatly from your portrayal. So run along if you like and find other people who simply agree with you, but if you want to actually DISCUSS this topic, you might try providing a quote that shows Stevens' opinion actually IS what you say it is.

STEVENS, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 07–290
_________________
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE
GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.
The question presented by this case is not whether the
Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an
“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be
enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second
Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us
anything about the scope of that right.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Even the dissent agreed that the 2nd Amendment is unrelated to militia service, and is an individual right. What they disagreed on was how much states and municipalities can regulate the right. They also didn't have cause in the Heller case to examine if the 2nd applies to states. That will be coming in the Chicago decision.

It's really 9-0 in favor of a personal right, but 4 of the dissenters only disagreed by what mechanism and to what degree it was protected as a personal right. (9th-10th versus 2nd)

All 9 justices agreed that RKBA is an individual right, arm youself with facts before you state something

you look more foolish than you already do try googling it and read the decision and then get back to us

We have read the Second Amendment twice, ten times, a hundred times, whatever you want. Now, it is time for YOU to start reading:

The main body of the amendment is "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The so-called "militia clause" in no way restricts an individual's right to keep and bear arms in accordance with some notion of militia. Even the great champion of the "militia clause," Laurence Tribe, had to finally admit (in 1999) that the wording of 2A recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms. In fact, the vast majority of historians, political scientists, con-law and legal scholars say the same thing.

You should keep in mind that virtually ALL the current and proposed gun-control laws are founded on the rank racist gun-control laws of the South, from colonial times, through the antebellum period, through Jim Crow and well into the 20th Century. Would you like a source for this? www.georgiacarry.org Search locally for the legal brief submitted on behalf of Heller in the '08 SCOTUS case. When you have read this THOROUGHLY, then "tell me what it means to you."

MLK once applied for a concealed-carry permit. Guess what happened? He was denied due to Jim Crow gun-control laws of the 1950s. Eleanor Roosevelt and Harriet Tubman packed, BTW. Other Civil Rights leaders of the era were also armed, Jim Crow or not.

And now, to address your oversimplified quote of the Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Read that WHOLE sentence. Twice. Then tell me what it means to you.

What it means to me is that the founders intended for this country to have a decentralized military system, made up of state-controlled militias, that could either eliminate the need for, or at least counter, federal military power. These militias were to be made up of citizens of the states, lead by officers from those states, in short, they were made up of The People.

The founders, however, foresaw the possibility of the militias being disbanded, or usurped, and consequently they specifically noted that it is the right of the people, and not the militias, who have the right to keep and bear arms.

This was wise, as the State militias were federalized in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act.

Why?

because we have also seen people we wouldn't trust with a knife and fork going around with a weapon hanging off a hip.

While people in this state have to pass a safety test to carry a gun, that safety course is very short and very much on the cursory side.

I avoid people who are packing unless I know them and know there is a reason for them to, like being diamond merchants.

Anyone who has been around firearms for many years has seen many people mishandle firearms. It's inevitable. If you have seen that, you're always going to be a little wary of strangers carrying. Any one of them could be an idiot who doesn't handle firearms safely.

Perhaps it is their right to open carry. So, only for the purpose of exercising that right they do open carry. I can see no reason, as a CCW holder to ever open carry. I know of no LEOs that would ever even thing of doing that and they would know more about self-defense than most.
I look at it like the First Amendment. Because it is my right to walk around town with a totally racist tee shirt on, I would never, ever, thing of doing that to make sure everyone knows I support the First Amendment. Those that do open carry are doing the same thing, for the same reason a KKK member or skin head would do by wearing racist signs on their cloths. Rubbing the face of those that disagree with them in their rights. I'm with the poster, I'll stay as far away as I can from an open carry nut as I would from a white power racist nut.

I should provide some context to that question. In various threads in which the topic of threatening or using lethal force against robbers or burglars on this forum, there is almost invariably someone who will assert that protecting mere "stuff" isn't worth killing someone over. Now, not only are diamonds mere "stuff," in my book, but they're "stuff" of which the price is vastly inflated, not least by the illegal and/or unethical activities of De Beers, still the largest player in the business (even though its share of the global market has shrunk from around 80% to around 45%), and an amazing amount of hype driven, among other things, by what one of the Magliozzi brothers termed "the Marital-Industrial Complex." So what makes diamonds so much more valuable than, say, the life of a child that you consider it socially acceptable for a jeweler to carry a deadly weapon to protect his stock of gemstones, but not for a parent who wants to protect his or her child(ren)? The diamonds are, at least, replaceable, especially since synthetic diamonds are actually better than the "real" thing (bullshit advertising by the diamond industry notwithstanding).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

are unsafe firearms handlers. This has nothing to do with any sort of manhood issue.

In fact, I would suspect that only a few that carry concealed do so to prove masculinity. In Florida, open carry in urban areas is not allowed. Therefore, I don't know anyone who open carries and will not venture any opinion on their motivations.

I do however know a large number of people who have concealed weapons licenses and do carry. Many are ex-police or ex-military. None have impressed me as people who really need to prove their manhood. Remember that if you are carrying a firearm concealed, no one should know that you are.

I've found that many people who do have carry permits are self reliant. They are generally very competent and confident but not boisterous or intimidating. Politeness and courtesy seem to be common traits. Most who do carry concealed will walk away from an argument or confrontation even if it makes them look cowardly.

Plus a large number of women legally carry firearms. I wonder if you would suggest that all these women suffer from penis envy.

Examine these charts from the State of Florida website for concealed carry statistics.

Concealed Weapon / Firearm License Holder Profile
As of March 31, 2010


sourcehttp://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_holders.html

The problem with painting a large group of people with a very broad brush is that you make yourself look foolish. Stereotyping is NOT something that an intelligent and educated person engages in.

I don't think she is trying to prove her "manhood".

We both carry because violent crime really does happen, and we do not intend to be good victims if it comes our way. We will resist.

as the street thug points his loaded gun at your face?

You've obviously never been a victim of violent crime. Those who have been victims know that, while some violent crimes may be different, many of them happen very quickly. "Perps" are not interested in a struggle to get what they want, whatever that may be, and so are very cautious to choose proper locations and proper attack techniques to guarantee they have the upper hand.

I have several police officers and ex-officers among my family and friends. Between them they rack up well over a century of law-enforcement experience, and each one has said the same thing at one time or another: "Concealed weapons in the hands of victims will only prevent a small number of violent crimes, while raising the death toll."

There is only one sure-fire way to prevent a violent crime with a concealed weapon: To WITNESS that crime in process.

has crime rates been falling, BTW my daughter is a Las Vegas Metro Police Officer and she and every street cop I've talked to support citizens right to carry concealed, and if you have situational awareness chances are that you will recognize danger and exit the sit. or be prepared to deal with it. I have carried concealed for several years now and I am always aware of whats going on around me

it would indeed lower the crime rate. There isn't a sane person on this planet who would argue that point. But while the overall crime rate would go down, the percentage of crimes ending in death would most definitely trend upward.

As I said above, a criminal isn't interested in struggling for what they want. They're looking for the easy mark. If that means they have to start shooting people BEFORE they ask/search for the money, then they will.

most criminals will go for someone who looks like an easy mark, if a citizen looks like they can and will defend themself the criminal will look for an easier mark, most dirtbags dont want a confrontation, most are just POS cowards

You think they won't shoot your ass from the dark alley next to the street then mug your corpse?

with that is that I am always aware of my surroundings and would not put myself in that sit.

...is mostly due to a couple of totally non-gun-related policies. The nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, Clinton's COPS program, and the 3-strikes-and-you're-out laws did more to help that either the good economy, the AWB, or concealed-carry liberalization.

My wife has actually used her gun to prevent herself from being murdered. But she was able to do that only because she was aware of what was happening and didn't let the thug surprise her.

Having a gun is NOT a magic talisman. It has to be used properly, and that means being alert. Of course criminals will notice if the target is alert and will likely move on to someone else who will grant them the surprise they need.

Yeah, that's why I carry a S&W Ladysmith. Because carrying a gun designed for women proves I'm a man. Got it. :eyes:



FWIW, I have a carry license, and don't open carry, but I live in a state where carry licenses aren't issued on the basis of wealth or political contributions. Not everyone is so fortunate.

I wish I could afford one, right now.

Edit: I'm definitely a man.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Did you see the guy at the Obama rally in NH with his gun strapped to his leg?

It was an "in your face" gesture, meant as a challenge.
My guess is that he's one of those morons you're talking about.


Hunt to hunt, open carry if it's your business, conceal if you do dangerous things...

but a gun is not a political statement, nor is it a toy - and when I see someone like that moron I too get the heck out of there.

demonstrations of civil rights are OFTEN in your face

that's not a bad thing

that's a GOOD thing

in many communities, two gay guys walking down the street holding hands is done to be IN OTHER PEOPLE"s face.

and many bigots say it shouldn't happen in public.

darn those pesky civil rights advocates, expressing their rights in public, so other people can SEE IT

it's so darn "in your face"

and carrying a gun IS a statement and expression of civil rights.

like wearing a t-shirt that says "fuck bush"

that's in your face.

is that a challenge?

it's a challenge to others to DEAL with you, expressing your rights

but i realize with you cafe constitutionalists, only SOME rights deserve such protection and expression

a guy with a sneer, a sign that speaks of blood, protesting the second amendment by making people fearful?


Rosa wasn't dangerous
the 2 guys are exuding love
the guy in the shirt you can look away from


but the guy with a gun and an attitude? he could be the next George Sodini etc.


KEEP YOUR DAMNED GUNS! I don't care is you sleep with yours.

- but you don't bring a herring to the library and you don't bring a gun to a protest.

they are advocating rkba under the 2nd

rosa wasn't dangerous? she was to bigots.

and the guy with the gun openly displayed. why is he dangerous. does open carry of a gun = more dangerous?

please provide me evidence that people who open carry are more dangerous than the average person.

i'll stand by

If you saw a person with blood on his hands holding a knife at the protest - would you worry?
If you saw a person there with a running chain saw and a white mask - would you worry?


Why? How is this different than a man with a loaded gun, and a sign that referenced blood -

This isn't about the gun, it's about doing something to cause worry.

i would detain him based on reasonable suspicion and investigate

that's what i do


if i saw a guy with a gun openly carried and wearing a t-shirt w/a political quote, i would do nothing, because as a law enforcement officer i know such activity is both legal AND an expression of constitutional rights in my jurisdiction

hth

and again, where's the evidence that people openly carrying are more dangerous than those who don't

EVIDENCE PLEASE

considering that in 20+ yrs of law enforcement i have never heard of , or investigated a crime involving a gun somebody was openly carrying (and i;m in a open carry state) and EVERY single handgun crime i have investigated involved somebody who ,if they were in any sort of public setting, had CONCEALED the handgun before using... well...

I SAID he was carrying a sign that referenced BLOOD

"from time to time the tree of liberty..."

he was protesting Obama's visit to Portsmouth NH
with a sign - and a gun...
he was wrong to bring the gun, it has no place in that situation
nervous police, secret service, lots of people


this isn't about the right to carry
this isn't about the second amendment
this is about a discourteous young man who wants attention
this isn't about breaking the law - got that?

Thomas Jefferson?

I'm not at all sure Tom would have denied a young man's right to be discourteous.

that a founding father the likes of Thomas Jefferson would condone his words being used in this fashion is a bastardization of history.

If Jefferson had known that his "Tree of Liberty" quote would be taken so out of context by people openly threatening a sitting US President so often, he would have had one of his slaves cut off his hands and sew shut his lips.

threatened the Pres., he would have gotten a visit from the Secret Service or been arrested on the spot, was he arrested on the spot? no he wasn't

Every day on the internet people openly threaten the president, and they do not get immediately arrested. They do, however, get very closely watched in order to ensure to the satisfaction of the Secret Service that those people's threats are empty.

threatened the Pres at this gathering he would have been arrested immed. You didn't answer my ?. was he arrested for openly threatening the Pres?

Your question is a red herring.

you still didn't answer my ? was he arrested?

Anyway, I fully support his ability to do those things, even if I might disagree with his politics.

the RIGHT of the KKK to be the most hateful and publicly disgusting bigots I know. That doesn't make them right.

retroactively read his mind and determine what he would have had one of his slaves do. And I did not suggest limiting the First amendment as well as the Second to certain people who express only opinions that coincide to my own. That is what you have done.

It was in regards to the "Shay's Rebellion" a tax revolt. At the time he said it in a letter he was away in France.

Here is what another said about the rebellion. Samuel Adams said "In monarchy the crime of treason may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

Also the next line is always left out of the quote, "......The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Jefferson was far away at the time and political and economic elite were not so tolerant to open rebellion as Jefferson might not have been if at home.

this isn't about politeness

was what rosa parks did "polite?"

who #$($#( cares?

advocating for civil rights by being IN PEOPLE's faces is a long established tradition

you, as a cafe constitutionalist, don't support it in regards to the 2nd.

Yes, I said it. YOU should be forced to apologize to EVERY child in this country who has looked at Rosa Parks as a hero. To compare these people to Rosa Parks is to do such disservice to her memory as to be nearly criminal, and you're doing it again and again in this thread. It's almost like you don't WANT people to take you seriously...

that advocating for civil rights often IS discourteous.

hth

for you cafe constitutionalists, only SOME of the bill of rights matters.

i prefer the whole enchilada. that's what i eat at MY cafe

hth

You invoked Rosa Parks because you feel like you identify with her, standing against a grave injustice done to you by the awful prejudiced majority. Reading what you've written makes that all too clear, and it is a disgusting parallel that should never have been used.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's not about me or you, except somehow my "immaturity" is important enough to this conversation for you to comment on it (ironically, BTW). As for your denial, the beauty of a message board format is that what you DID say is right there in black and white for all to read, and it is quite clear WHY you invoked Rosa Parks. :puke:

ignorant about what you think you know and I seriously doubt that Paulsby has anything to apologize for

gun-enthusiast who feels he's being ill-used by the government and by the majority and feels that they are just like Rosa Parks?

Spare me...

you really have no clue of who I am, what are you, an internet psychiatrist? All your doing is showing your ignorance, I'll ask again, so you support the banning of all guns and if so, will you go door to door assisting with confiscation?

I don't agree with you on concealed or open carry and suddenly I'M COMIN' TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!!

Calm the fuck down.

It may interest you to know I possess rifles and shotguns myself, and believe every person should have the right keep arms in their homes. I simply don't agree that open or concealed carry is anything close to a good idea.

guns i asked if you supported the banning of all firearms, obviously you don't but I vehemently disagree with your stance on open or concealed carry, which is the beauty of this country. Why should I not be allowed to carry concealed? I have gone thru all the steps to get a permit and the state of NV seems to think that I am of good character. Do you know what it takes to get a permit in most states?

and it isn't enough in my state. Educational classes can only take you so far, especially when they're mostly book-based and provide no real-world in-class experience in the proper handling of a firearm in all situations.

(or however much you think should be required) to know when someone intends to do me harm.

But thanks for your concern.

EVERYONE does. That's why we have basic training and police academies. Aside from teaching people how to properly respond in a crisis, these things teach people how to properly handle their various firearms while involved in those crises.

To be clear, I'm not concerned about you shooting yourself. I'm not concerned about you shooting the perp (in fact I'd be glad). I AM concerned that a two-year old child several blocks away from the altercation will take a bullet in the head because you drew too fast and shot wide.*

*This happened in my hometown last week. The kid was on his grandpa's knee on his front porch. Now he's in the ground.

Are they just a better class of people there?


May I see your voter training certificate? The most dangerous thing you can do, and all we seem to require is proof of citizenship. My God, all you have to do is be born here.


And, not that I disbelieve you, but do you have a cite for the incident you reference? These are exactly the types of things we can learn lessons from, sad as it may be.

Lastly, there is a study around somewhere that shows that Citizens hit innocent bystanders at a rate far lower than "trained" police officers. I can't find the cite right now, but I'll post it as soon as I do, or maybe someone hear may help me out (Help....! TIA).

A mostly rural state with 1/6th the population of my city? I don't think those two can be considered anywhere near representative of each other.

To claim that voting is the most dangerous thing you can do is an incredible hyperbole.

Here's your link, with a correction: I was told the child died by a friend of mine. Turns out that info was incorrect.
http://www.globe-democrat.com/news/2010/mar/19/child-injured-stray-bullet-two-face/

I've heard of that study before, but what the study didn't take into account was that trained officers are far more likely to be involved in an armed confrontation than armed citizens who aren't thugs. Therefore, it only makes sense that you are more likely to be shot by a cop, then a thug, then an armed citizen who follows the law. However, what will happen when everyone arms up? Will the ratio be the same, or will it, as I suspect, reverse?

Your incident had nothing to do with a lawful self-defense situation.

Your final post is sheer nonsense. Citizens far outnumber the police. And no-one suggests that "everyone arm up", we only advocate that they have the liberty to do so if they wish.

But set up all the strawmen you want. I'm done for the night, allergies are making my head explode, sorry. Good night to you.

Dismissing that incident because it wasn't due to the act of an otherwise law abiding citizen is unwarranted. A person, regardless of his legal status, drew a firearm and quickly fired on another person, missing his target and killing a small child.

It could just as easily have been you on either end of that gun, so don't be so fast to dismiss the possibility that you might shoot wide and be forced to deal with killing an innocent.

And my final point only makes mathematical sense. As the number of CCW permits continues to rise, the likelihood of being shot by an armed citizen will rise with it. Will it overtake the likelihood of being shot by a cop? I'm not sure, but since there are 300M+ people in this country and approx. 700,000 police officers, I'm leaning toward "yes".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that someone disparaging the memory of a great civil rights icon is disgusting, that makes me authoritarian?

I don't think you know what that word means...

Why are the people who get so hysterical about legally armed civilians, the first to want to resort to use of force on those who disagree with them?

Makes my eyes cross. :crazy:

Do you think I'm actually advocating that the police visit him and parade him in front of every child in America forcing him to repeat the words "I'm sorry"?

Not at all.

I do think, however, that if any of Ms. Parks' family were subjected to this thread, they should have the right to deal with his incredible disrespect to her memory in whatever way they see fit.

Well, untill you came along...

Everybody has their notion of what "civil rights" is. And everyone pretty much disagrees, in one instance or another, with what someone else's notion of "civil rights" is. That is why protest (assembly, redress, speech) IS A RIGHT. So one blow-hole or another doesn't get into position to "force" someone to apologize.

FYI, the KKK demonstrated at the Texas Capitol building some 20 years ago. They were allowed to rant and rave. And they had to put up with a school bus-load of bar flies from the Saxon Pub in South Austin, who came to the rally, arrayed in front of the sheeted ones, turned their backs and dropped their lily-white drawers. Lot's of blur- & blue-outs in the videos. The Klan packed up and left, never to return.

The problem was the gun in combination with the sign.

FWIW, the guy's sign bothered me way more than the gun. How anyone who has just lived through seven years of the Bush administration's "War on Terror," with all the attendant trampling of civil liberties, can suggest that Obama is a "tyrant" merely for wanting to do something about the atrocious state of health care (and no matter your opinion on what the correct way to reform health care should be, it's indisputable that some kind of reform was sorely needed) is entirely beyond me.

(Which, as an aside, is why I refuse to accept Teabaggers' stated motives at face value. Where the fuck we they during the years 2002-2008?)

So the problem with Mr. "Live Free or Die" there wasn't so much that he was openly carrying, as that he was openly carrying a firearm while also bearing a sign that advertised the fact that he's a complete idiot.

about cops and soldiers with guns displayed. He was one of the lucky ones who survived.

as protection against cops and soldiers is asinine for three reasons:

1. Shooting back at a cop is one of the fastest ways to die that I'm aware of,
2. Soldiers are more likely to frag their superior officers than to attack their own country.
And 3. Even if 1 and 2 weren't true, they have guns you'll never be able to get. Big ones that you can mow forests and urban areas with equally well. If the time ever comes where the US Military faces off against an armed citizenry, my paycheck is on the soldiers, and the citizens who run like hell for the caves, as survivors.

So tell me another reason why keeping your guns is so damn important.

to the Iraqi's that fought our troops to a standstill.

Urban warfare in a city where you can't drive most armored and armed troop transports and tanks is very different from urban warfare in LA, where the full brunt of military hardware could be easily unleashed.

advocating a ban on guns and if so, would you be willing to go door to door and help with confiscation? Or would you have others do what you wouldn't do yourself

it's definitly been a spirited and sometimes heated discussion but I've got to pull a 24 hour shift tomorrow and I really need to get some sleep so you have a hell of a good night

Peace Out:fistbump:

taking them away. I'm no big fan of the NRA, I've owned guns for 61 years and never was a member but I sure as hell align myself with Heston's "from my cold dead hands" comment. You hate that...I get it but I hate even more the attempts by hooligans to deprive me of my Constitutional rights. If you think that makes me a freeper, or a troll, or an asshole, that's your privilege. I won't ever try to tell you what to believe...I would hope you would return the favor.

salad bar "christians' (sometimes they're both)

;-)

Why openly carry a gun? It's intimidating for all those who don't have one. Are they trying to intimidate people? What are they afraid of that they feel they need to carry a gun in the first place?

And I share your concern mainly because the family members and friends I know who have guns are mostly dim witted high school dropouts. (Yes, I know all gun owners don't fit this description, but the ones I know do.) Just seems completely unnecessary.

no need required.

like knowing CPR, or having fire insurance (at least if you own the house)

useless reply.

here is a hint. it's not about feeling a need. no woman seeking an abortion has to NEED one to get one

Open-carry is becoming an issue in California (see the fatuous Starbucks controversy), because one CANNOT easily obtain a concealed-carry permit (only if you are wealthy, celebrity, politician, etc.). So, if you wish to be armed, you have to carry open (and if I recall correctly) an unloaded gun.

Politically speaking, if all states had fair shall-issue concealed-carry laws, there would be less push for open-carry. One or the other. (I presume you support shall-issue concealed-carry so you won't have to put up with your fears of open-carry.)

Please note that Dianne Feinstein (D-California) is a rabid gun-prohibitionist; yet she was able to obtain a concealed-carry permit and stashed a gun in her purse because she "needed" it at the time. It's like the anti-abortion pregnant teenager who told her doctor that she favored killing abortions doctors. When the doc asked her if she favored HIS killing, she said yes. After her abortion.

CCL is "may issue" so if you are not best buds with the local Sheriff you are SOL.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

so what is the point?

Loading a semiauto pistol takes less than 2 seconds with only a little practice.

Please do your research.

already drawn weapon. I did the research.

Perhaps the Citizen is behind a rack of goods when a criminal tries to rob a store.

Perhaps the Citizen exercises her/his ability to dodge behind cover/concealment (not the same things) and gains time to load.

Perhaps the Citizen is simply very fast.

Perhaps the criminal is slow, stupid, or not very situationally aware.

Look there are a million ways for this stuff to play out, insinuating that the criminal will always have the upper hand is not supported by actual data.

Do you have any data that shows open unloaded carry has save lives? I don't think your point is supported by any data. Now if you are a social scientist, one anecdote equals data. Strong correlations require powerful statistics.

People are doing this in California because it is the only way to exercise their Civil Right under Unconstitutional restrictions.

There is no data I am aware of that it has saved or cost any lives, and that is irrelevent to the Constitutional issue.

and when some one ask you for it, it is "irrelevent", I'll have to remember that one. Restrictions on open carry do not violate the Constitution. Where has any court ruled that? Just like speech, the 2nd can and does allow reasonable restrictions. You can't carry a gun into a court room in my state. You can't fire a gun within the city limits. You can't buy a gun if you are a felon. You can't point a gun at a cop. There are lots of restrictions and some people are not going to like some of them. But to think the 2nd means anything goes is insane, think again.

You defend open carry as it is the only way to exercise a civi right. If they own a handgun they are doing exactly that. Why not defend wearing a racist tee shirt? Same logic.

1. I did not ask for any data. I stated that there isn't any. I could be wrong on that, if you have access to some, please let me know, I'd be happy to see it. Whether such data exists or not, it is irrelevent to the Right recognised by the Constitution.

2. Restrictions on open carry do violate the Constitution. "...shall not be infringed." The Wisconson Supreme Court has noted that, since the state does not allow concealed carry, open carry may not be prohibited, because it is the only way to exercise the right to "bear arms". California, being also very restrictive of concealment, has to allow open carry, but tap-dances at the very limit of "reasonableness" by requiring the firearm to be unloaded. They also have a number of other rules that make unlicenced bearing of arms to be particularly onerous; I believe many of those laws will be struck soon after the USSC rules on McDonald/Chicago. Personally, I do not understand restrictions on concealment, but that may be because I come from Vermont, noted for it's restrictive gun laws and daily bloodbaths.

3. I certainly don't think that "anything goes", but my limits are far different from yours. I actually think the Constitution means what it says (for all the Amendments, just so you don't think I'm cherry-picking favorites here). The limits are that you may not use your Rights to directly harm others, without due cause (they are trying to harm you, unprovoked). Pretty simple.

4. I do defend wearing racsist T-shirts. I may disagree with the message, but I will defend the Right. Puts me in pretty good company, I think. ACLU among others.




One persons "reasonable" is another persons tyranny.

by someone exercising a right that is protected (not granted) by the Federal goverernment and most state ones. If someone's goal is to intimidate by doing so that is equally unfortunate, but exceedingly hard to prove.

I get offended at some of the things people say when exercising thier first amendment rights, but just like the second amendment there are rules already in place regulating the expression of those rights.

We as a society continually change those regulations by writing laws or repealing ones we think are obsolete (well we are supposed to but sometimes obscure obsolete laws are just left on the books and not enforeced). The current trend in society is for most states to trend towards "shall issue" laws that set forth objective criteria that one must meet in order to legally carry (concealed or openly) weapons for self defense. (even law makers in the People's Democratic Republic of New York are seriously considering going to a "shall issue" system)

I know too many crazies.

Basically, in a populated area or public place... your almost guarunteed someone has a CCW permit.
How does it feel to KNOW you live in a state like like that? Do you just not go anywhere?

:shrug:

Awesome logic there, chief.
And antigunners wonder why their policies have become irrelevant. :eyes:

Feel your pain.
:-)

open carry is not allowed in public. I carry concealed and no one knows.

mmmph

:silly:

Just copy the text over to get the graphic.

:sarcasm:

It does avoid confusion.

I was passed out on the bar at a sleazy strip joint here in Cleveland. Some guy, apparently the boyfriend of a dancer who was gyrating some where near my resting mellon, squeezed off a shot that woke me right the fuck up.

He was screaming, "No one sleeps while Evvy's dancing..."

My Friends got me out of there real quick like...

I don't believe anyone would every take a nap in Evvy's presence again.

it's impossible to know whether they're a gangbanger who could whip out a Saturday night Special and rob and/or shoot me.

because at least with open carriers, you can SEE they are carrying and do your best to avoid them, keep a distance

a person concealed carrying could be standing RIGHT NEXT TO YOU

oh noes!

You've missed my point. I've been around firearms all my life, and I've seen way too many people who have no clue how to handle them. I did not say that I wanted to ban carry, did I? I said I'm uneasy around strangers who are carrying. I don't know them, so I do not know their abilities or their knowledge of firearms safety.

Don't make something more of my post than what I put in it, OK?

As for people carrying concealed, you're right. Most often, I don't know that they're carrying, so I don't concern myself with them. It's the ones who have their pistol carried openly that I worry about. I can see that they're armed, and I have no idea whether or not they are safety conscious or anything else about them. With the licensed concealed carry people in Minnesota, I know that they at least have been exposed to some training.

instead of the other way 'round that most people operate. It also seems that you are assuming that anyone carrying a concealed weapon has "some training"...do you imagine that's the case with gang bangers who bought their gun on the street last night?

I have to confess, your position makes no sense to me.
shrug

I'm not a fearful person...just a careful one. I used the word skeptical, not fearful. As for your gangbanger example, I can recognize a typical gangbanger, and you can be assured I will give him a wide berth.

I have to confess that your misunderstanding of what I said makes no sense to me.

express some degree of fear. Perhaps some cunning linguist will weigh in here with an expert opinion.

But I defer to your expertise in identifying gangbangers, I lack that ability. How do you do it?...is it predicated on epidermal hue? - that's how some people make the determination, so I am told.

But then, I certainly am in accord with your desire to be "careful"...which is why I choose to keep some tools useful for self-defense at hand. I guess we pretty much agree after all! :D

However, you're very new here, so you don't know me. Let's keep it that way, shall we?

i admit it. that was funny

otoh, your unease/skepticism/whatever around open carriers is not related to evidence, but don't let that stop you.

it's like being more uneasy in a commercial jet than while riding a motorcycle on a rural highway

the former is much safer

regardless of your "feelings"

I will not darken your door again.

to make a moral condemnation of character, style and proper dental hygiene. So many gun-controllers throw "fear" around because they harbor far more fears than they would let on; hence, their accusation that "the rest of us are living in fear."

Fear is a useful emotion which signals us to make preparations, take precautions, etc. These actions usually reduce fear and lessen any real or potential danger.

I realize that you not are aware that they are carrying unless they are "printing" or accidentally expose their firearm. Does this make a difference?

Most states that allow concealed carry require training before issuing the license.

Florida does not allow open carry, so I am unfamiliar with those who do.

I do remember one incident years ago when I encountered one. My wife and I were at a grocery store buying supplies as a strong hurricane was approaching. An individual wearing a military khaki shirt and pants was strutting around with a .45 automatic hanging from his belt. He said something about being a part of a militia outfit.

I considered calling the police, but figured that they were probably too busy to deal with a minor problem. He looked harmless but a bit of a fool.

Strikes me that everything you've said applies in equal amounts to persons carrying concealed, except that you probably can't tell they're carrying. As paulsby noted above, at least with open carriers you can see if they're armed, and it's readily apparent if they're futzing with their weapons, or are using crappy holsters on weak belts (which is a bad sign in my book). For what it's worth, I've hung out on the OpenCarry.org forums for a bit, and just about everybody on there seems to use at least a Blackhawk Serpa CQC holster (http://www.blackhawk.com/catalog/SERPA-Concealment,1410.htm), which features a retention device that has to be actively disabled before the pistol can be drawn.

Most of them have no training, and something like 50% of them get it wrong and vote dangerously in every election. When I see someone I don't know voting, I leave the area as quickly as possible because I don't know what they're going to do. Some people vote at random. I know some people who voted for fascists and communists... on purpose. I know others who voted for the wrong people by accident. Random people voting make me uneasy. I've seen too many people who should never have a voting booth near them.

So, I keep my distance from people I don't know who are voting.

It's quick and easy and I avoid everyone.

:toast:

Your analogy is so apt until you realize that people who exercise their power to change the government don't have nearly the danger potential as people who desire to carry and advertise the power to kill at a distance.

With a gun, as a law-abiding citizen, I will kill no-one, unless violence is brought to me.

With a vote, as a law-abiding citizen, I can help to kill thousands or millions without ever seeing a single body or feeling an moment of discomfort.



The moral difference is indeed of Nietzschean-abyss proportions.

that if you, as a witness to a violent crime, shoot the perpetrator(s), then violence was brought TO YOU?

You're also telling me that if I voted for a congressman because I thought he would represent me best, and then he voted for war, and I voted against him every chance I got after that lack of representation, I still helped to kill thousands or millions?

Holy fuck.

Yes, if I help stop a violent criminal action in my presence, most likely that violence was brought to my by other parties. I don't go seeking confrontations.

As for your second, ummm.... wow. Did no-one ever explain how voting works to you? If you help put a person into a position of power, and they then make bad decisions, yes, you are partly responsible. If you try to get that person removed, that speaks well of you, but does not make your prior actions "never happened". It's called accepting responsibility. It's what adults do.


In the words of the Knight in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"...

Chose.... Wisely.

When you vote for your local mayor, do you then take responsibility for every action that mayor performs? Of course not.

And funded the action, and didn't try to stop it and.....

"Government by the consent of the governed." If you consented by voting (what the bureaucrats tell us is what we are doing) you are absolutely culpable, at some level. Maybe not to the point that you aught to be punished, but it should weigh on your conscience.

Some populated centers have their own restrictions. It is not at all unusual to see hunters carrying rifles or shotguns, and 30 years ago it was commonplace. It is unusual to encounter people who are intimidated by firearms, and our violent crime stats are very low.

Personally I regard guns in the same light as automobiles and power tools, useful and mundane but dangerous if caution is not used.

that you don't drive ---- since you can't possibly be aware of the mental state of other drivers, you can't reasonably "keep your distance" from them at all times, and are many more times more likely to be killed or injured by one of them than by a CCW holder.

And the gun owners are "fear driven" and "paranoid"?

As another member is wont to say..............



*snort*

and for the same reason that I avoid people I don't know who are carrying openly. As you say, I don't know them in either case. So far, so good, and I have no reportable accidents on my record in the 49 years I have been driving.

*sniff*

and sometimes inches away from me.


When I see someone acting irresponsibly (with a car or gun or anything) then I stay away and/or call the police.

Otherwise I trust, but I am prepared for the worst.

I watch them closely and drive very defensively. I see no difference.

You still drive on 2 lane roads where a short drift could lead to head on collisions. I don't worry when I pass someone on a highway. I'm just vigilant without the negative feelings you experience with an open carry person. I don't feel uneasy or uncomfortable unless I see poor driving behavior. Open carry is does not bother me any more than another car on the road bothers me.

The Kentucky court of appeals settled the question in clear and unambigous language.

"In our state the legislature is empowered only to deny to citizens the right to carry concealed weapons. The constitutional provision is an affirmation of the faith that all men have the inherent right to arm themselves for the defense of themselves and of the state. The only limitation concerns the mode of carrying such instruments. We observe, via obiter dicta, that although a person is granted the right to carry a weapon openly, a severe penalty is imposed for carrying it concealed. If the gun is worn outside the jacket or shirt in full view, no one may question the wearer’s right so to do; but if it is carried under the jacket or shirt, the violator is subject to imprisonment for not less than two nor more than five years. The heavy emphasis, we suppose, is upon the undue advantage given to a person who is able suddenly to expose and use a weapon, although the gun itself is the vicious instrument………."

Seeing someone wearing a gun in a holster openly does not particularly draw my attention. On the other hand, if someone is constantly fiddling with the thing for no apparent good reason, I would look askance. I will not tolerate people handling firearms in an unsafe or careless manner.

After seeing them drive, there are people I will not ride with either.

the way I described if I'm in Kentucky. I will notice those who carry openly, and avoid them whenever possible. The single time I was in Kentucky, however, I didn't see very anyone carrying openly, other than a cop or two. That was over 20 years ago, though, so maybe things have changed since then.

I just want to secure the choice of open-carry.

I've been open carrying a little over two years, mostly because, at 20, I can't get my CHL yet. Honestly, though, even when I get my CHL I still think I'll stick primarily with open carry. In Georgia I can legally concealed carry with just my military ID (Statue 16, chapter 11, section 130, subsection 3 of Georgia state law if you're curious), and I have done so quite a few times especially during the winter months when I'm usually wearing clothing more conducive to concealed carry, but honestly open carry is just more comfortable, especially during the summer. Plus, I usually carry a full-sized 1911, which isn't particularly easy to conceal. I also like the idea that the mere sight of a gun on my hip might deter a crime from ever happening in the first place, and I like letting people know that a guy going about his business with a gun on his hip isn't a big deal.

As for making a political statement with a gun? I'm currently stationed in the Army as a member of 3rd Ranger Battalion, but I'm in the process of getting discharged as a conscientious objector after spending the last year and a half realizing just how bogus these wars really are. One of the things I plan on doing when I get back home to Oregon is to stand on the street corner (possibly by myself, possibly with a few other like-minded people) in front of the recruiting station with my AR-15 slung over my back and a sign that reads something along the lines of:

"Anti-war?
Absolutely.
Hippie coward?
HELL NO."

Just require them to carry it pointed towards their own heart. that way, if, they're not careful with the gun, they punish themselves, and not other people.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

is the K.L. Null Holster Model SKR City Slicker.



Today most people don't carry this way as upside down shoulder holsters are rare. Some people do carry with the gun pointed at their family jewels.

Your bigotry seems to be carried openly.