The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Bic on November 25, 2012, 08:10:39 PM
-
I was reading this: http://edcforums.com/threads/saw-my-first-open-carry.102196/ thread on EDCFORUMS.COM and somwere down in the comments there's the expression 'good for the cause' = I'm half inclined to agree - whaddya think?
-
Sheep need to be conditioned to accept the idea that open carry is legal and poses no threat to the public.
-
This is what I like about Minnesota's carry permit. It is not a conceal carry permit. The intent is that if someone notices you are not in trouble.
I don't open carry, but I am not afraid to remove a jacket that will expose the firearm either. I just go about my daily life, and when they see, they see.
At this point I still feel that strapping a gun out in the open or a rifle over the shoulder does more harm for the cause than good. That said, the homosexual groups and the pro-abortion groups tell us that we are not "in your face" enough.
-
This is what I like about Minnesota's carry permit. It is not a conceal carry permit. The intent is that if someone notices you are not in trouble.
I don't open carry, but I am not afraid to remove a jacket that will expose the firearm either. I just go about my daily life, and when they see, they see.
At this point I still feel that strapping a gun out in the open or a rifle over the shoulder does more harm for the cause than good. That said, the homosexual groups and the pro-abortion groups tell us that we are not "in your face" enough.
What qualifies as "in your face"? If I can hold hands with my GF, shouldn't a gay guy be able to do the same with his SO? I'm not advocating slinging an AR over your back, and I prefer to cary concealed, but I think wearing my shirts tucked in with the grip of an IWB sticking out is not beyond the pale.
-
What qualifies as "in your face"?
That my friend is all in the eye of the beholder.
In AZ it gets maybe a second glance, in other places it may lead to "OH GOD!! HE'S GOT A GUN!!! *PSH.
*PantShittingHysteria
-
What qualifies as "in your face"? If I can hold hands with my GF, shouldn't a gay guy be able to do the same with his SO? I'm not advocating slinging an AR over your back, and I prefer to cary concealed, but I think wearing my shirts tucked in with the grip of an IWB sticking out is not beyond the pale.
Uncle Ted in your face. We have a small group of leaders that speak out for our rights. Mr. Heston was bold, but only in certain settings. Ted Nugent is on 100% of the time.
Homosexuals and abortionists have groups and leaders that are on 100% of the time, so your gay friends aren't the ones blazing the trails.
-
That my friend is all in the eye of the beholder.
In AZ it gets maybe a second glance, in other places it may lead to "OH GOD!! HE'S GOT A GUN!!! *PSH.
*PantShittingHysteria
But AZ is an OPEN CARRY state. I was a little surprised when I saw a customer with a Glock 19 at the teller's counter in a Wells Fargo Bank, though. Bank manager said it didn't bother him as long as it wasn't pointed at him. Good attitude.
Crusader
-
But AZ is an OPEN CARRY state. I was a little surprised when I saw a customer with a Glock 19 at the teller's counter in a Wells Fargo Bank, though. Bank manager said it didn't bother him as long as it wasn't pointed at him. Good attitude.
Crusader
I thought thats what we were talking about.
-
This is what I like about Minnesota's carry permit. It is not a conceal carry permit. The intent is that if someone notices you are not in trouble.
I don't open carry, but I am not afraid to remove a jacket that will expose the firearm either. I just go about my daily life, and when they see, they see.
At this point I still feel that strapping a gun out in the open or a rifle over the shoulder does more harm for the cause than good. That said, the homosexual groups and the pro-abortion groups tell us that we are not "in your face" enough.
+1
Pretty much the same in Georgia. The permit covers both concealed and open carry.
Like you, I prefer concealed at all times, but do not worry if it is seen. I have went to the barber shop and removed my jacket, exposing my gun, and not worried in the least (of course, my barber is a gun guy too). I have done the same thing in restaurants during winter and not worried.
I might choose a different tactic if I were in Macon or Atlanta or such, because the more northern urban areas view things a little differently and many of the cops take a different view also.
Our former Probate Judge here in my county told me once about her nephew that was stopped and detained in Macon because his 1911 was visible (under his flapping vest) while he was riding his motorcycle down I-75 and a cop saw it. He argued the point of legality with the cop, to no avail. So he called his aunt and she made a call to a judge she knew really well from the Macon district. Needles to say, he was released and the cop got a re-education on the law from the judge.
-
I personally like the idea of OC. But since the OC "movement" here in CA directly led to the backlash ban of all OC (handguns and now long guns in Jan) statewide, I would now say no, it is not "good for the cause". This ban now directly prevents me from OCing here in the San Bernardino National Forest (where OC makes sense) for my own protection. Long story, but the SBNF basically "follows state law". So the OC movement personally screwed over my rights.
-
OCers and gay rights group both screwed themselfs by being to "in your face" in ca. it was thru the court system gays won, they got thier ass handed to them twice in elections. ocers in the rich part of socal, that were looking for a conflict, found one when bills banning oc became law. so saying we need to be more vocal can and does backfire. in ass hole can wipe out the posative work of thousands.
-
OCers and gay rights group both screwed themselfs by being to "in your face" in ca. it was thru the court system gays won, they got thier ass handed to them twice in elections. ocers in the rich part of socal, that were looking for a conflict, found one when bills banning oc became law. so saying we need to be more vocal can and does backfire. in ass hole can wipe out the posative work of thousands.
You are right about the backfiring.... and on the bold part, I really agree with that.
-
Sheep need to be conditioned to accept the idea that open carry is legal and poses no threat to the public.
I completely agree. This is as much about "hearts and minds" as it is about being the right thing to do.
-
Californians lost the right to OC not because people were actually exercising their legal right , but because they are a bunch of sheep who do not demand their rights and therefore don't deserve any of them.
If they really cared about their rights they would ignore the illegal law, and they would not submit to the Mexican invasion, corruption, and incompetence that is driving the worlds 7th largest economy into bankruptcy.
-
Californians lost the right to OC not because people were actually exercising their legal right
I disagree. The OC ban was in direct response to all the OCers with video cameras looking to start political confrontations.
they are a bunch of sheep who do not demand their rights and therefore don't deserve any of them.
I agree on this. The majority are sheep that voted these clowns in office, to the detriment of folks like me.
If they really cared about their rights they would ignore the illegal law
Tempting, but I'm not about to risk a firearms violation, potentially jeopardizing confiscation and my future rights to possess or purchase guns. A law may be unconstitutional, but it's still a law. The way to fight it is to fight to repeal it or challenge it in the courts, not simply break it. IMO, bad advice and I hope you were just joking.
-
I disagree. The OC ban was in direct response to all the OCers with video cameras looking to start political confrontations.
I agree on this. The majority are sheep that voted these clowns in office, to the detriment of folks like me.
Tempting, but I'm not about to risk a firearms violation, potentially jeopardizing confiscation and my future rights to possess or purchase guns. A law may be unconstitutional, but it's still a law. The way to fight it is to fight to repeal it or challenge it in the courts, not simply break it. IMO, bad advice and I hope you were just joking.
Not joking a bit, BUT, the times to have done it effectively were 1934 with the NFA and 1968 with the GCA.
Once the sheep submitted to those they left the door open to any other infringement the gov can get passed.