| Author | Post |
|---|
Task Force 16
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 06:47 pm |
|
sneak wrote: CCWONLY wrote:
Every time I see gays being outlandish, it strengthens my resolve to keep them from ever gaining the right to marry. Do you ever think about how people are reacting to seeing your weapon in public?
This is a perfect reason for gays to make out in public, and for gun owners to open carry. Eventually, dragged out into the light of day, a reasonable person must admit the fact of the matter - what others do that doesn't break the law is not a reason to seize or harass them on the grounds of the personal opinions of those doing the seizing.
Being out and proud has worked wonders for gay rights - there's no reason it should be less effective for gun rights - in fact, it may be even more effective, as gun rights, in my estimation, are probably much easier to sell to the average american voter than gay rights are.
Someone brought up a great point recently in the CC vs OC thread - it shouldn't be a divisive issue - what we want here is freedom to protect ourselves, in whatever way we choose. Making enemies out of people fighting for the same thing is never productive.
Personally, I fully support those who choose NOT to carry, as well - personal choices within your freedoms should not be stopped. I don't think it's a very smart choice, but, it's their right, and I defend their right to make their choice just as strongly as I defend mine to make my own.
Let's not quibble over the details - we're after the ability to protect ourselves from those who would hurt us. The marginal differences in CC vs OC ideology can certainly be overcome to accomplish this end, the importance of which greatly overshadows our minor differences.
Ya know, there use to be a time in this country when any public show of affection between heterosexial couples could result in arrest. Especially if they were married to each other.
Why..... it just wasn't proper. 
|
RIAShooter
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 02:07 am |
|
Task Force 16 wrote: sneak wrote: CCWONLY wrote:
Every time I see gays being outlandish, it strengthens my resolve to keep them from ever gaining the right to marry. Do you ever think about how people are reacting to seeing your weapon in public?
This is a perfect reason for gays to make out in public, and for gun owners to open carry. Eventually, dragged out into the light of day, a reasonable person must admit the fact of the matter - what others do that doesn't break the law is not a reason to seize or harass them on the grounds of the personal opinions of those doing the seizing.
Being out and proud has worked wonders for gay rights - there's no reason it should be less effective for gun rights - in fact, it may be even more effective, as gun rights, in my estimation, are probably much easier to sell to the average american voter than gay rights are.
Someone brought up a great point recently in the CC vs OC thread - it shouldn't be a divisive issue - what we want here is freedom to protect ourselves, in whatever way we choose. Making enemies out of people fighting for the same thing is never productive.
Personally, I fully support those who choose NOT to carry, as well - personal choices within your freedoms should not be stopped. I don't think it's a very smart choice, but, it's their right, and I defend their right to make their choice just as strongly as I defend mine to make my own.
Let's not quibble over the details - we're after the ability to protect ourselves from those who would hurt us. The marginal differences in CC vs OC ideology can certainly be overcome to accomplish this end, the importance of which greatly overshadows our minor differences.
Ya know, there use to be a time in this country when any public show of affection between heterosexial couples could result in arrest. Especially if they were married to each other.
Why..... it just wasn't proper.
What happened to the f@#king kittens?????????
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 02:21 am |
|
RIAShooter wrote: What happened to the f@#king kittens?????????
Here's one for you. 
Yata hey
Attached Image (viewed 263 times):
|
Task Force 16
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 04:22 am |
|
Grapeshot wrote: RIAShooter wrote: What happened to the f@#king kittens?????????
Here's one for you.
Yata hey
Now that's a COOL Cat! 
|
machron1
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 10:18 am |
|
CCWONLY wrote: Greetings. I write to you because I have become concerned with the growing movement for the acceptance of the practice of open carry.
RE-growing movement, actually...
I am a firearms enthusiast, hunter, frequent shooter, and regularly carry concealed. My guns are for sport, personal protection, and general enjoyment. In short, I am a gun nut.
Cool!
I have been reading material on the websites for open carriers, and am becoming concerned. It seems the number one objective is to find places to pack your gun around where people will object.
I believe most people simply want show that normal people carry guns, in part to reverse the stigma created by Hollywood and the mainstream media with an anti-gun agenda.
Just because something is legal, does not mean that everybody must accept it.
It's not only legal, it is an inalienable right under the Constitution of the United States, my state, and your state, so actually everyone must accept it by its very nature. Private property is private property, but in public, rights are rights. If people choose not to exercise their rights, that is their choice. However, it is NOT their choice to restrict me from my own personal exercise of my individual, god-given rights.
Do the rights of property owners mean nothing to you?
I firmly believe in and respect private property rights. If someone doesn't want me on their property for any reason, I respect that. I might not agree with it, and I might want them to change their point of view, but I still respect private property rights.
Wal-Mart does not want you walking around with a gun on your hip, lawful or not.
Actually, most Wal-Mart stores allow weapons carried legally. It's just that many of the people who work there aren't aware of the store's policy, or the legality of open carry.
Smoking is legal, but I do not let anybody smoke in my house.
Smoking immediately affects other people physically, is not guaranteed by the constitution, and your house is not (as far as I'm aware) open to the public in general. So, that's perfectly understandable. Now, if you didn't allow people in your house holding a pack of cigarettes in their hand, because there is a potential for them to light up, I would say you were a bit paranoid...but still within your rights.
I am certain that there is something you would not allow on your land.
I wouldn't want people shooting on my land without permission. However, carrying a weapon has no more or less of an effect than the color underwear someone is wearing, and I don't care what color underwear they are wearing.
If you don’t like the idea that some people would rather you come in unarmed, either conceal or just don’t go there.
Concealing a weapon that is not allowed on said property is highly dishonest, and a direct violation of the private property rights you "respect". That's like if someone lights up in your car when you told them not to, but they feel justified in doing so just because they are blowing the smoke and ashing out the window.
But instead, it seems many of you would rather go through the confrontations everywhere.
I would rather avoid confrontations, but I'm not going to stop exercising my rights just to do so. Maybe I should stop eating meat because I might offend a vegetarian? Maybe I should stop driving because I might offend the environmentalists? What's more, none of those things are constitutionally protected by a specific article, so those things should in theory be higher on the appeasement food chain than carrying a gun.
I have made hundreds, maybe thousands, of trips to stores with a gun. How do I avoid the hassle? Conceal it. Discrete carrying has also never resulted in harassment by police.
Remind me not to enlist you in helping organize a protest, as you would likely insist we hold it in private.
The burden you complain of is completely self-imposed. You made the decision to make sure everybody sees your pistol. And the sense of self-importance as a ‘customer’ has completely overshadowed the responsibilities held as a ‘guest.’
So, Rosa Parks should have just sat in the back of the bus then? I mean, she would have avoided all the hassle, right?
Why must you open carry to begin with?
Well, there are lots of reasons, but mainly because after 8 years of carefully hiding my weapon, enduring the consequences of the wrong choice of wardrobe when weather conditions changed, and knowing that in case I ever had to use my pistol, it would take a bit longer to dislodge it from wherever I felt compelled to hide it, I decided enough is enough. So, I came out of the closet.
Here in Washington, you must have a CPL to have a loaded weapon on your person or in your reach in a vehicle. So either you walk everywhere you go, you stop and open the trunk to retrieve your firearm when you reach your destination, or you have a permit, but prefer to display what you have.
There is a lot of work to do before we can have Vermont-style carry laws. Until then, I have a CHL for Oregon and a CPL for Washington, and obey all laws.
Let’s also not forget that everybody votes. So every time you are out in public with a firearm in plain sight, you may be influencing somebody in a negative way.
They will remember this come November.
The general trend in this country is the expansion of gun rights at the behest of the voting public. Also, most will tell you the vast majority of experiences are positive. It's just that most people don't post about every time they walk down the street or buy a cup of coffee while open carrying.
Every time I see gays being outlandish, it strengthens my resolve to keep them from ever gaining the right to marry. Do you ever think about how people are reacting to seeing your weapon in public? You are taking a big chance not only with your rights, but with mine by deciding everyone needs to see a gun today.
Long ago I used to feel uncomfortable seeing gay people being affectionate in public. But, I've grown to accept their behavior through repeated exposure to it. After all, they are merely expressing themselves as guaranteed by the Constitution, and I respect their rights, and no longer even give it a second thought. It is my personal opinion it is you, not me, who needs to change your way of thinking. You can't put everyone back in the closet.
It is also selfish. Every lawfully carried concealed weapon is one in the hands of a good guy. It makes perpetrating a crime a spin of the roulette wheel. The criminals are taking a chance that this will be the last victim they choose. Concealed carry protects everybody, because nobody can be sure who is prepared to defend themselves, and who is not. Open carry protects only you. It in fact improves the bad guy’s chances, because they can remove one armed citizen from the pool of potential victims.
So, by the same reasoning, the police should only wear plain clothes and hide their weapons? Visible police presence is not a deterrent? Your logic is fundamentally flawed. That is not to say anonymous concealed carry has no deterrent effect, but I believe open carry and concealed carry are complimentary.
Please consider doing what the majority of gun carriers do every day, and conceal your weapon. This is not Dodge City, and there is no compelling reason for open carry.
I've considered it, but since this is America, I'm going to continue exercising my rights however I see fit. That's how America works.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 02:58 pm |
|
Thorough response machron1.
The hit & run trool sure gave us a lot a of practice reciting chapter and verse for the choir did he not.
Yata hey
Last edited on Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 02:59 pm by Grapeshot
|
David.Car
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 05:07 pm |
|
| Please, ladies and gentleman, let the troll thread die!
|
CD MCKINNEY
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 05:31 am |
|
| I live in Phoenix where open carry is legal, but you don't see too many people doing it; I'm not sure why. I carried open until I got my CCW and I only had one "incident" when a citizen reported a "man with a gun". I had a LAR Grizzly 45 win mag tucked in my waste band [out for a walk] and a city cop [on a motorcycle] approached me, drew his weapon and ordered me to put my hands up. It took a few moments for several other officers to arrive and after they disarmed me and ran my ID they gave me back my weapon, told me to have a nice night and left. I don't have any argument with those who open carry but I [now] feel much more secure with it concealed [a Dan Wesson 5" stainless 1911 10mm] as I'm not a "target" until I choose to be and I can present and fire in 1 second when necessary, and [man] the 10mm is an awesome caliber, [and] using Double Tap 180 gr JHP Gold Dots [1330/690] gives you maximum fire power [and accuracy].
|
Doug Huffman
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 11:53 am |
|
Venator wrote:On common sense: Randy Wayne White wrote in his novel Captiva.
“It is a character standard from folklore in which “good old common sense” is an essential bedrock ingredient. But too often “common sense” is a safe harbor of ignorance and an excuse for intellectual laziness. They don’t need the facts because they already know the truth—their common sense has spared them the effort of investigation or thought.
I will remember this and use it when asked to explain 'the conspiracy of ignorance', "The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense."
Thank you very much.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 04:47 pm |
|
CD MCKINNEY wrote: I live in Phoenix where open carry is legal, but you don't see too many people doing it; I'm not sure why. I carried open until I got my CCW and I only had one "incident" when a citizen reported a "man with a gun". I had a LAR Grizzly 45 win mag tucked in my waste band [out for a walk] and a city cop [on a motorcycle] approached me, drew his weapon and ordered me to put my hands up. It took a few moments for several other officers to arrive and after they disarmed me and ran my ID they gave me back my weapon, told me to have a nice night and left. I don't have any argument with those who open carry but I [now] feel much more secure with it concealed [a Dan Wesson 5" stainless 1911 10mm] as I'm not a "target" until I choose to be and I can present and fire in 1 second when necessary, and [man] the 10mm is an awesome caliber, [and] using Double Tap 180 gr JHP Gold Dots [1330/690] gives you maximum fire power [and accuracy].
Sure hope you are not stopped when you drive at night because your lights are on, made to "spread 'em, patted down, have your ID run for wants and warrants, then get your license back and told to have a nice night as the multiple officers leave.
Anybody that points a deadly weapon at me for doing nothing threatening has crossed the line and will generate a reaction at some point thereafter from me not even considerating the rest of the question.
You should have at least filed a complaint as not doing so is implied agreement with such unnecessary over reaction and extra legal practices.
Yata hey
|
SANDCREEK
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 05:57 pm |
|
It occurred to me the other day that one source for opposition to our OC may very well be those citizens out there who are "prohibited" from possession of firearms. You know - those convicted of felony criminal offenses or domestic violence. Particularly if these persons are respecting said "prohibition" laws. They may be prone to "act-out" when confronted by a citizen who has not had their rights of citizenship restricted, and is excercising their right. We have to consider all corners of opposition, and/or RESENTMENT.
I would favor their rights of citizenship being FULLY RESTORED upon demonstration of good behavior (5 years?) after completion of sentence. The ranks of the "prohibited" class have little or no vested interest in the RTKBA - motivating them to vote for the likes of Obama.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 06:38 pm |
|
SANDCREEK wrote: It occurred to me the other day that one source for opposition to our OC may very well be those citizens out there who are "prohibited" from possession of firearms. You know - those convicted of felony criminal offenses or domestic violence. Particularly if these persons are respecting said "prohibition" laws. They may be prone to "act-out" when confronted by a citizen who has not had their rights of citizenship restricted, and is excercising their right. We have to consider all corners of opposition, and/or RESENTMENT.
I would favor their rights of citizenship being FULLY RESTORED upon demonstration of good behavior (5 years?) after completion of sentence. The ranks of the "prohibited" class have little or no vested interest in the RTKBA - motivating them to vote for the likes of Obama.
A felon might object to my carrying? Why? Just the reason you gave or are there others? Jus' kidding. 
Most of the "prohibited" class does not have the right to vote - so I don't think that they will have a meaningful effect on the election.
I might support restoration of their rights with some exceptions but that is another subject!
Yata hey
|
dukenukum
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 12:43 am |
|
An good case for open carry is presented in Robert A Heinlein's novel beyond this horizon
and here is a cat picture .
|
ute
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 03:00 am |
|
deepdiver wrote: There are at least 2 current threads addressing all matters in the "open letter". If CCWONLY won't take the time to actually read the forum and the consistent responses to these matters I see no reason for us to take the time to respond to the "open letter". Most likely this is another hit and run troll just like the last few, who will post this and then disappear. We will spend pages responding to no avail because no one but us will read the responses anyway and we already know what each other is going to say because we have already said it in a dozen threads like this.
CCWONLY, if you want to take the time to actually read this forum and our responses to other comments exactly like yours, and then start a thread addressing those comments and responses on the forum, I am sure that many people would be happy to discuss the issue with you. Otherwise, thank you for your pontification and have nice day.
+1 from Missouri
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 3799 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 02:15 pm |
|
ute wrote: deepdiver wrote: There are at least 2 current threads addressing all matters in the "open letter". If CCWONLY won't take the time to actually read the forum and the consistent responses to these matters I see no reason for us to take the time to respond to the "open letter". Most likely this is another hit and run troll just like the last few, who will post this and then disappear. We will spend pages responding to no avail because no one but us will read the responses anyway and we already know what each other is going to say because we have already said it in a dozen threads like this.
CCWONLY, if you want to take the time to actually read this forum and our responses to other comments exactly like yours, and then start a thread addressing those comments and responses on the forum, I am sure that many people would be happy to discuss the issue with you. Otherwise, thank you for your pontification and have nice day.
+1 from Missouri And here we are on page 5 with no further posts from CCWOnly in over 2 months. Prophetic, no?
|
SANDCREEK
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 04:04 pm |
|
Grapeshot wrote: Most of the "prohibited" class does not have the right to vote - so I don't think that they will have a meaningful effect on the election.
Yata hey
MOST (?)....Perhaps . I'm not sure of the state-by-state break-down. One thing is for sure - their ranks GROW DAILY, they number in the MILLIONS , and they ARE NOT LIKELY TO SUPPORT THE 2A since THEIR RTKBA has been INFRINGED. Here in Colorado they can certainly VOTE- if they have completed their sentences, but their RTKBA is restricted by statute even though the CO constitution provides for NO EXCEPTION to full restoration of their rights of citizenship.
This is one of the most important issues confronting our 2A guaranteed right, and like it or not we are going to have to deal with it. I don't apologize for "hi-jacking" this thread since it's dead-in-the-water anyway. The "felon" restriction is the foremost threat to the 2A. The term is generic for a growing list of the "prohibited" persons. Do the math - if a citizen is prohibited from excercising THEIR 1st Amendment rights - why should they care if MY 1A rights are respected ?
When you start looking into those "prohibited" from excercising their 2A right - you will find A LARGE NUMBER are good solid citizens like you & I . If they are a danger to society - guess what - they should stay behind bars. The 2A does not allow for ANY EXCEPTION for " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". The enactment of these societal denials of civil rights is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
There is far too much ignorance exhibited on this subject. If we consent to allow other citizens to be thrown overboard - sooner or later it will be OUR TURN. If the "lefties" succeed in electing "The Great One" Obama we could find ourselves either DISARMED or included on the "prohibited" list. We had best get prepared to defend our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms ourselves - because NO ONE else is going to step up.
OK - Now back to FEEDING THE TROLL.
|
WheelGun
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 03:36 pm |
|
Is it considered a weaker positon amongst OC enthusiasts to advocate going between three circumstances (unarmed, CCW and OC) according to what will make your day go forward with the least hassle? I go to banks and Post Offices unarmed, go to local businesses CCW, and on my own land and in the woods, OC.
When I travel, I only go to OC/CCW friendly destinations such as PA, VT, NH.
I am more likely to OC on a trip with my family out of state, because of that definitive "I just want to stop to get a tank of gas and move on without trouble" attitude OC communciates. I avoid non 2A states NJ, etc. like they were radioactive.
However at home, I just do whatever is easier.
|
Bebop
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 21 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 04:21 pm |
|
SANDCREEK wrote: Grapeshot wrote: Most of the "prohibited" class does not have the right to vote - so I don't think that they will have a meaningful effect on the election.
Yata hey
MOST (?)....Perhaps . I'm not sure of the state-by-state break-down. One thing is for sure - their ranks GROW DAILY, they number in the MILLIONS , and they ARE NOT LIKELY TO SUPPORT THE 2A since THEIR RTKBA has been INFRINGED. Here in Colorado they can certainly VOTE- if they have completed their sentences, but their RTKBA is restricted by statute even though the CO constitution provides for NO EXCEPTION to full restoration of their rights of citizenship.
This is one of the most important issues confronting our 2A guaranteed right, and like it or not we are going to have to deal with it. I don't apologize for "hi-jacking" this thread since it's dead-in-the-water anyway. The "felon" restriction is the foremost threat to the 2A. The term is generic for a growing list of the "prohibited" persons. Do the math - if a citizen is prohibited from excercising THEIR 1st Amendment rights - why should they care if MY 1A rights are respected ?
When you start looking into those "prohibited" from excercising their 2A right - you will find A LARGE NUMBER are good solid citizens like you & I . If they are a danger to society - guess what - they should stay behind bars. The 2A does not allow for ANY EXCEPTION for " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". The enactment of these societal denials of civil rights is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
There is far too much ignorance exhibited on this subject. If we consent to allow other citizens to be thrown overboard - sooner or later it will be OUR TURN. If the "lefties" succeed in electing "The Great One" Obama we could find ourselves either DISARMED or included on the "prohibited" list. We had best get prepared to defend our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms ourselves - because NO ONE else is going to step up.
OK - Now back to FEEDING THE TROLL.
I will join you in hijacking the thread. I can see where you are coming from and would be fine with giving ex-convicts back there rights. My thoughts on it are every right except 2A is given back to you the moment you are released because I feel that when in prison that you should be punished. So by breaking the law and disrespecting someone else's rights why should you keep yours, kind of like saying 'yeah it sucks when people take away your rights, huh'. 2A will come back after a few years and you have shown that you were able to assimilate back into society. Prison can be very hostile place and can breed hatred for people or "the establishment" not to say that hatred will go away after a few years but chances are if they are going to go back to prison the majority of time it is within 'x' amount of time. Once you have shown that you were able to assimilate back into society by getting and keeping a job etc. you can get your 2A rights back. That is just my $.02
|
Gator5713
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 04:34 pm |
|
Regaining right (after incarceration) should be a gradual process based on the extent/type of crime committed. When you committed the crime, you gave up your rights, or at least some of them. The term 'assimilation' basically means the gradual joining of two separate things. Therefore 're-assimilation' into society should also be gradual.
On a side note; Should we really be 'hijacking' anything while we are trying to regain our rights to arm ourselves? Does that really show that we are reaponsible? 
|
Bebop
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 21 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 06:11 pm |
|
Gator5713 wrote: Regaining right (after incarceration) should be a gradual process based on the extent/type of crime committed. When you committed the crime, you gave up your rights, or at least some of them. The term 'assimilation' basically means the gradual joining of two separate things. Therefore 're-assimilation' into society should also be gradual.
On a side note; Should we really be 'hijacking' anything while we are trying to regain our rights to arm ourselves? Does that really show that we are reaponsible?
If they won't give it to you take it by force. Just kidding... but seriously.
Just to clarify though, we are not regaining our rights at least most of us here aren't. We are trying to educate the sheep on what our existing rights (not privileges) are, always have been, and hopefully always will be. ""Ignorance of the law is no excuse" and I am quoting a New York city judge on that one"
|
Current time is 09:42 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|
|
