Why Open Carry is a bad Strategy - Page 28
Page 28 of 50 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 494

Thread: Why Open Carry is a bad Strategy

  1. #271
    Weird..... In 30+ years I've never open carried, I didn't realize I had lost the right.

    If anything the gun laws in Utah are more gun friendly.

    I don't understand this logic.

    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
    Time to add FireMarshall Bill to the block list.

  2.   
  3. #272
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    South East Texas
    Posts
    32
    I would like to change the thought line here if I can. My state does not allow OC. If they did, I would most likely still carry CC. My problem is not with pulling or showing my XD40 to prevent a crime and worrying about the consequences later. My worry is the consequences of some whacko calling PD because I reached for something on the top shelf of a store or the wind blew my shirt open for half a second. Most reasonable people will support the brandishing if you have just stopped an incident. But whacks are trouble.
    I also agree with IOC "If you don't use it, you will lose it!" And as I may not OC all the time if I had the right, I sure would not worry about the little things like wind and reaching for the top shelf.
    Did you learn something new today and did you smile? if not, why?
    Later, Art S.

  4. #273
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,734
    Quote Originally Posted by Warbirds View Post
    Weird..... In 30+ years I've never open carried, I didn't realize I had lost the right.

    If anything the gun laws in Utah are more gun friendly.

    I don't understand this logic.

    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
    The 2nd Amendment says:

    "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."

    It says "bear arms" and without any qualifications as to any specific method of bearing arms then all methods are being referenced. And it says "bear arms" shall not be "infringed". Which means we have the right to bear arms in any manner we wish and the government shall not infringe upon that right by regulating that right in any manner.

    Sooooo.... if folks must first obtain a concealed carry permit in order to legally carry a gun concealed then the government has infringed upon the right to bear arms in a concealed manner by regulating it by requiring a person to first obtain the government's permission... a "permit".

    So if in your State a permit must be obtained in order to carry a gun concealed then you have already lost the "right" to bear arms in a concealed manner because the government has regulated that right with the infringement of a.......... "permit".

    I find it sad that many folks actually believe a CC "permit" IS the right to bear arms... as in "Sure I have the right to carry a gun. All I have to do is go get a permit." Anyone else see the contradiction in those two sentences?

    Not to mention that even the right to bear arms openly has been infringed upon by the government with laws that regulate where a gun can be legally "possessed" and who can "possess" a gun.

  5. #274
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,734
    Quote Originally Posted by Art S. View Post
    I would like to change the thought line here if I can. My state does not allow OC. If they did, I would most likely still carry CC. My problem is not with pulling or showing my XD40 to prevent a crime and worrying about the consequences later. My worry is the consequences of some whacko calling PD because I reached for something on the top shelf of a store or the wind blew my shirt open for half a second. Most reasonable people will support the brandishing if you have just stopped an incident. But whacks are trouble.
    I also agree with IOC "If you don't use it, you will lose it!" And as I may not OC all the time if I had the right, I sure would not worry about the little things like wind and reaching for the top shelf.
    I understand your concern but please consider this. If OC were more prevalent then just by being seen on a daily basis it would become commonplace to the point where folks would eventually consider seeing a gun as the same as seeing green shirts. It would become no big deal. But in order for the sight of a gun to become commonplace somebody has to step up and.... open carry to make it happen.

    And I can say from first hand experience that the public's acceptance of OC in Michigan has changed dramatically in a positive way in the past couple of years mainly due to the efforts of a few individuals and Michigan Open Carry members (I'm not a member) OC'ing on a daily basis... sueing police depts. that harass OC'ers... open carrying into municipal council meetings and getting illegal ordinances changed.. and with having OC picnics in parks and OC dinners in restaurants.

    And when open carry becomes normalized and main stream even the police will stand behind the OC'er when someone calls and complains.... had it happen to me in a local park where the cops were called and the cop told off (politely of course) the one who made the MWAG call... not me.

    And if OC is illegal in your State and the only way you are "allowed" to bear arms is with the permission of the State called a "permit".... then you do NOT have the right to bear arms... all you have is the ability to beg the government for permission to be given the "permitted" privilege.

  6. #275
    Yow. I wake up from a long winter's nap and amazingly, we're still having this argument over CC vs. OC. Same old tired argument, I might add. Who gives a rat's ass? Just carry. More importantly, know how to use it and when to use it. And then pray you're good enough. And pray ahead of time, cause stopping to pray when the SHTF ain't gonna cut it.

    (My opinion: OC = no fuss, no muss. Strap it on and away you go. Anyone who doesn't like it can pack sand...and then go read the Constitution).
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  7. #276
    Just my opinion but I don't believe a concealed carry permit is an infringement of my rights. Thomas Jefferson opined that an individual's rights extend only to the point that they infringe on another individual's rights. I have a right to own a car but I can't drive it without a license and insurance. I can't fly an airplane without a license. A permit process that requires safety training and background checks helps to protect the publics reasonable expectation to move about their community without being accidentally shot by an idiot with a pistol who has no idea of how to safely carry/handle a firearm. No one screams about safety training for hunters. Why the uproar about a similar requirement for handgun carry? The background check is somewhat debatable. Criminals by definition dont obey the law and would not apply for a permit. The law-abiding citizen is not/should not be deterred by such a requirement. Decades ago I operated a pistol range in NC and carried openly as was the law at the time. Today I am a CWL holder in OK and carry daily. I believe in a SAFELY armed citizenry.

    Romans 8:37

  8. #277
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by dragon6 View Post
    Just my opinion but I don't believe a concealed carry permit is an infringement of my rights. Thomas Jefferson opined that an individual's rights extend only to the point that they infringe on another individual's rights. I have a right to own a car but I can't drive it without a license and insurance. I can't fly an airplane without a license. A permit process that requires safety training and background checks helps to protect the publics reasonable expectation to move about their community without being accidentally shot by an idiot with a pistol who has no idea of how to safely carry/handle a firearm. No one screams about safety training for hunters. Why the uproar about a similar requirement for handgun carry? The background check is somewhat debatable. Criminals by definition dont obey the law and would not apply for a permit. The law-abiding citizen is not/should not be deterred by such a requirement. Decades ago I operated a pistol range in NC and carried openly as was the law at the time. Today I am a CWL holder in OK and carry daily. I believe in a SAFELY armed citizenry.

    Romans 8:37
    Hey dragon, you seem like a pretty level headed guy, and your posts definitely have some thought behind them. That said, I do not understand how you can relate the 2nd amendment of the BoR to driving/owning a car. Where in the constitution does it say we have a right to own a car? Cause I can show you exactly where it says we have a right to bear arms. If our rights extend only to the point that they infringe upon another individuals rights, what right of the other individual am I infringing by carrying a firearm?

    I would also like to point out, the states that require no such training are not having any more problems with safety than the states that do require training. I do not hunt, so I do not speak for safety training for hunting, but if I were to, it would be on the side of our rights.
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  9. #278
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,734
    Quote Originally Posted by dragon6 View Post
    Just my opinion but I don't believe a concealed carry permit is an infringement of my rights. Thomas Jefferson opined that an individual's rights extend only to the point that they infringe on another individual's rights. I have a right to own a car but I can't drive it without a license and insurance. I can't fly an airplane without a license. A permit process that requires safety training and background checks helps to protect the publics reasonable expectation to move about their community without being accidentally shot by an idiot with a pistol who has no idea of how to safely carry/handle a firearm. No one screams about safety training for hunters. Why the uproar about a similar requirement for handgun carry? The background check is somewhat debatable. Criminals by definition dont obey the law and would not apply for a permit. The law-abiding citizen is not/should not be deterred by such a requirement. Decades ago I operated a pistol range in NC and carried openly as was the law at the time. Today I am a CWL holder in OK and carry daily. I believe in a SAFELY armed citizenry.

    Romans 8:37
    You are entitled to your opinion.... however please allow me to offer some food for thought.

    Any governmental system that regulates the right to bear arms IS an infringement simply because it puts the government in control of who, what, when, where, and why, the right is/or isn't exercised.

    And what the government giveth... the government can taketh away. Which is why the 2nd Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not "the government is in charge of the keeping and bearing of arms".

    And I don't see where my carrying a gun infringes on any of someone else's rights. Please explain this further because I am confused as to which of your rights are violated by my carrying a gun concealed? Why does my getting the government's approval (a permit) to carry concealed suddenly not violate those rights?

    And we should be very careful about falling for the slippery slope of buying into "mandatory training" because the training the government mandates today can, and will, change and become more strict as time goes by until no one except the very wealthy can afford to jump through all the new hoops. Imagine one of the criteria being each person must present a certificate of completion of a two week training seminar costing in the thousands of dollars. Could the average person afford it? Or would "permits" suddenly become something only the very wealthy could afford to have?

    And how does a permit system help protect the honest folk from the criminal who doesn't participate in that permit system? If the criminal doesn't participate in the permit system how will the authorities know he/she doesn't qualify so they can deny them a permit and not "allow" them to carry concealed? So who does the permit system control?

    And please do not say that the CC classes provide any actual "training" that makes the person who passed the class safer than the criminal who didn't take the class because the present classes only cover the bare bones basics. Not to mention that if we make those classes more in depth we are back to any classes that would make a significant difference in a person's ability to handle the gun would cost too much for the average person to afford.

    Not to mention there are plenty of folks supposedly with training who are idiots that shoot themselves and others supposedly "accidentally"....

    By the way... the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms so could you please show me where there is similar protection for the right to drive on public roads? I don't know of where there is "the right to drive a car/operate a vehicle shall not be infringed"?

    As for a "safely armed citizenry" perhaps the scary question would be...... "Who gets to determine what constitutes being a "safely armed citizen" and what guarantee is there that the one in charge won't simply impose his/her own definition upon everyone else?" Imagine if the Brady bunch were to be elected/appointed to positions of power.... wait... I think (my opinion) that has already happened!

    And if the answer to that question is that the government should be in charge ... well take a good look... the government is already in charge of that and instead of the right to bear arms we have............... gun control and carry permits.

    As I said earlier, I respect that you stated your opinion... I only wished to present the difference between a right... and a government controlled privilege.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by dragon6 View Post
    Just my opinion but I don't believe a concealed carry permit is an infringement of my rights. Thomas Jefferson opined that an individual's rights extend only to the point that they infringe on another individual's rights. I have a right to own a car but I can't drive it without a license and insurance. I can't fly an airplane without a license. A permit process that requires safety training and background checks helps to protect the publics reasonable expectation to move about their community without being accidentally shot by an idiot with a pistol who has no idea of how to safely carry/handle a firearm. No one screams about safety training for hunters. Why the uproar about a similar requirement for handgun carry? The background check is somewhat debatable. Criminals by definition dont obey the law and would not apply for a permit. The law-abiding citizen is not/should not be deterred by such a requirement. Decades ago I operated a pistol range in NC and carried openly as was the law at the time. Today I am a CWL holder in OK and carry daily. I believe in a SAFELY armed citizenry.

    Romans 8:37
    I notice the Bible verse at the end of your quote. Would you agree that there are dangerous religious cults in this country that cause the deaths of innocent people, for example the Manson family? So, it would not be an infringement upon your 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion if you had to pay the government for a permit, after passing a background check and attending religious training to go to church, would you? Surely not, right?

    Would you consider it an infringement upon your 1st Amendment rights if you were required to pay the government for a permit to post here on this forum? Surely not, right?

    How about paying the government for a permit to vote... that would not infringe upon your right to vote, would it? How much damage have bad Presidents done to this country? Maybe we would all be better off if we could weed out those less undesirables at the voting booth...

    Or, if you were arrested and accused of a crime, what if you had to pay the government for a permit in order to have a trial? No infringement there, right? That would save a heck of a lot of money and make us all safer because only the true, law abiding citizens would be interested in that one...

    Why do we, as people interested in defending ourselves and our loved ones against criminals think it is OK for the 2nd Amendment to be different than the rest of the Bill of Rights?
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  11. #280

    The title of this thread is a bad idea because....

    The title of this thread is a bad idea because we all know that OC is a personal choice, just like CC is a personal choice. The difference being, OC is a right in more states than CC is. So far as I am aware, CC is a right (i.e., no license required) in I believe, 4 states, or maybe it's 5 now. OC is a right in all but 7 states, to one degree or another.

    If this keeps up, does it mean we can go to the CC forum and talk about CCing being a bad idea?
    Big Gay Al: Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    An unarmed person speaking of the benefits of gun control is like a
    eunuch speaking about the benefits of sexual abstinence.

Page 28 of 50 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast