Open carry debate

[rmodel65]

Must be Open and/or Concealed Carry, cause it's a right!

Too bad it gets a bit heavy doing both; Open AND Concealed Carry at the same time...

yeah but it does help to keep the pants from hanging down one side more than the other

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It's simple. Use it or lose it. So goddamn USE IT. Everywhere you go, sling w/ AR, ACP .45, .40, whatever it is carry it wherever you go. More people might ask you questions...why are you doing this? Etc. This gives you an opportunity to educate some people. For the others, well it's pointless to try and educate those who are as steadfast in their ideals as we are.

Plus, if a cop harasses you, or takes your gun away and or arrests you, you can sue them. Take that money and then put it back into the movement by donating it. Win/win.

 

[fisharmor]

Sorry I'm late for the party....

My husband and I have several weapons. I'm so pro-2nd, it's almost stupid. My issue is with open-carry at demonstrations and town halls. I think it is too provacative and will cause problems we don't need.

Um... we're trying to get through to a privileged caste of overlords who routinely pass laws they haven't even read, for reasons they haven't thought through, which were given to them by someone higher up in the hierarchy.

Why should our message not be "hey, we're armed and we don't like you"?

If you truly are pro-2nd, do you see that the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is precisely to keep these jackasses in line? What is the problem with using our constitutionally protected right for a constitutionally protected, Declaration-of-Independence-mandated purpose?

In my opinion the "OC at meetings" advocates are either (1) so full of testosterone about "their right to self-defense" that they can't see the big picture, or (2) they're agents provocateurs.

I've never quoted myself before, but since you ignored my rebuttal last time, here it is again.

You espouse the notion that gun rights aren't rights: they're a political football which you can punt the second they get in the way of some perceived larger issue.

This philosophy is essentially the "lesser of two evils" in another form: we can capitulate on some "minor" issue as long as the REALLY BIG EVIL is being combated. I no longer espouse this idea and am frankly ashamed that I ever did.

Gun rights are not a minor issue. They wrap up distrust of government, personal responsibility, liberty, voluntary service to the general public, and lots of other libertarian notions, and fix them to your hip.

Emphasis added this time.
If you think that gun rights are a minor issue, then fine, enjoy your cell.
And I would point out that if you don't have an argument that doesn't involve ad hominem, then your entire argument is fallacious.


Regarding arguments in favor of OC... There is one and only one thing that separates America from the rest of the world: the fact that, after 235 years, there are still private citizens here who want nothing more than to go about their lives but, when things go too far, will pick up their rifles and do something about it.

That the possibility exists must be advertised before it happens. It would be irresponsible to go from zero to shooting overnight. We need to let society know that there are armed individuals who draw a line in the sand. If society doesn't know we exist, then if we ever did pick up our rifles, we'd be quickly labeled domestic terrorists (they already tried to do this, for f*&'s sake!), and crushed by a superior armed force with broad public support under the "anti-terror" banner.

There are no militias anymore, as they've been swallowed by the regular armed forces. There are no groups seriously advocating organized, armed private citizens defending against tyranny. There is only a disorganized remnant, busy arguing over the merits of AKs versus ARs.

So how do we get the message out before shooting is necessary? William Kostric already figured out how.

The entire point of owning weapons is to keep them as a threat to our overlords. If they are not seen as a threat, and we are anxious to pretend they are not a threat, then how can they be threatening when we need them to be?

They react the way they do because an openly carried sidearm is a threat. I am not arguing otherwise. But what they do not see is that the threat is not to their immediate person. The threat is to the status quo, to the two-headed leviathan, to tyranny.

The average schmuck doesn't go to the range and meet the type of person who owns guns. If that person never gets to see the character of the people who are armed, how in the world can we expect to be anything to him other than terrorists?

They need to understand the nature of the threat, and there is no better way than to see an armed man showing restraint when some mouth breather is practically begging to get shot.

YouTube - kos fight

Read the following, and then realize that if this man hadn't been controversially open-carrying on 12 August, this and the other interviews like it would not have happened.

http://thefastertimes.com/nonsensenews/2009/08/17/the-william-kostric-interview-part-one/

 

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

+1 more!!!

I was actually just talking to my brother's fiance yesterday about this. She's a sweet heart but has a hard tim ethinking logically about big scary guns... she said something to the effeect that guns should be banned from all political events because if people (with the guns) get upset, they might assault someone.
I countered that if we band guns to deter assaults, we should make cars banned too since people can use their vehicles to assault others. She laughed and so did I. Then i followed with... yeah that sounds stupid doesn't it

Anywho... thought some of you may find this interesting. I'm in michigan and the chapters here are growing rapidly! The next "bar-b-que"/"meetup" or whatever you wish to call it is in Canton at a beautiful park, right next to the police station. It should be a good time.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/

 

[Deborah K]

Fisharmor, how about addressing my concern about OC at townhall meetings, and protests? You don't consider that already inherent tense situations could be the flashpoint? I'm not interested in sparking a violent situation. And I know RP isn't.

I see it as a foolish tactic and nothing more.

 

[edstephan]

South Western PA T.E.A Party Rally (Bushy Run Battlefield) 12 September 2009

We need to send the politicans we are getting close to being fedup, have the will and power to effect change. It is time we send a message that they can only push us so far.

Actually, In Pennsylvania we do use Open Carry as activism
Here are some pictures of the South Western PA T.E.A Party Rally at Bushy Run Battle Field.

Here are some pictures that Cindy and I took.
We had folks from PAFOA.org, opencarry.org, ar15.com, and the ronpaulforums.com

Part of the OC crew

An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%
Ed Stephan

 

[penguin]

I'm still new to carrying so my opinion keeps changing the more I read about it. I look at this way at this point. My gun is a tool, if I'm going out and want to be safe it is concealed so the BG can't see it. I do think open carry does more to educate the public than to protect oneself. I would like to see more open carry events though. I also agree with pcosmar's "unrestricted carry" point.

 

[rmodel65]

Fisharmor, how about addressing my concern about OC at townhall meetings, and protests? You don't consider that already inherent tense situations could be the flashpoint? I'm not interested in sparking a violent situation. And I know RP isn't.

I see it as a foolish tactic and nothing more.

you do realize you are supporting racism correct?? you might find this interesting, for example a citizen can not carry to a polling location(so the sheriff can run off voters in GA) but look at say PA police cant carry to polling locations, so the people reign and can vote without being blockaded by a police force grasping for power....


www.georgiacarry.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/racist-roots-of-ga-gun-laws.pdf




.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Mini-Me]

Although open carrying is provocative, the public needs to be desensitized to the idea eventually. As Spot the Fed said, the failure of previous generations to exercise and reinforce their rights has landed us in this position, and repeating their mistakes will only further condition today's youth and future generations to associate firearms with police, the military, criminals, and terrorists only.

Do agent provocateurs and idiots exist? Yes, and that's exactly why it's so important for the most intelligent, well-informed, and responsible people to open carry too. If ONLY the idiots and agents do so, we allow them to define the image of open carriers by default...and does anyone here really think that's a good thing? The most important thing to remember here is that you cannot control whether or not someone else open carries; you can only control whether or not YOU do. Whether or not other people open carry at town halls (etc.) is mostly out of your control. While you may be able to convince some other intelligent people like yourself not to carry, you're not going to convince anyone who's all juiced up on roids and testosterone, nor will you convince agents or idiots. Considering the idiots and agents will carry anyway, it ultimately comes down to this: If you personally open carry, will you help or hurt the public image of open carriers?

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will carry guns...and when open carry is deemed stupid, only the stupids will open carry.

Keep in mind that I have no personal experience with open carry, and I don't even own a gun, so I'm not exactly "walking the walk." That said, I still think the above point is something to consider.

 

[edstephan]

When my wife and I OC, which is all the time we keep these Pennsylvania Gun Rights fliers handy: http://paopencarry.org/pdfs/Pennsylvania_Gun_Rights.pdf

I have been OC'ing for over 20yrs and usually don't have any problems. I do hand out about 50 of these fliers a month and more when we go to the TEA parties. I also am a Certified NRA Instructor in 6 different disciplines as well as former military. I have a License to Carry Firearms for PA, Utah CCW, and New Hampshire CCW. This combination allows me to carry in 36 states as well as transport with running afoul of the laws which vary greatly between states. Yes, I am an OC Activist!!

Most people do not even notice I'm OC'ing.
People are conditioned that they see something on a belt and it usually registers as a cell phone. Most of the ones that do notice are usually more curious than any thing else.
The biggest thing with OC'ing is to get used to carrying and act naturally and show the sheeple that OC'ers are normal everyday people that are concerned with their own protection.

I also suggest the younger members that want to get into get training, especially retention training. Also invest in a good level II retention holster and learn your state laws inside and out because the younger folks are the most apt to be hassled because they are easy targets and most LEO's think they don't know the laws.
There are several good web sites on Open Carrying www.opencarry.org (National), www.paopencarry.org (Pennsylvania), www.pafoa.org (Pennsylvania)

One other thing, If you plan to either Open Carry or Conceal Carry in other states like I have know the laws of that state forwards and backwards


An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%
Ed Stephan

 

[Deborah K]

you do realize you are supporting racism correct?? you might find this interesting, for example a citizen can not carry to a polling location(so the sheriff can run off voters in GA) but look at say PA police cant carry to polling locations, so the people reign and can vote without being blockaded by a police force grasping for power....


www.georgiacarry.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/racist-roots-of-ga-gun-laws.pdf





.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

WTF????

 

[fisharmor]

Fisharmor, how about addressing my concern about OC at townhall meetings, and protests? You don't consider that already inherent tense situations could be the flashpoint? I'm not interested in sparking a violent situation. And I know RP isn't.

I see it as a foolish tactic and nothing more.

Well... maybe you should read what I already wrote, because I did directly address OC at political events.... quite a lot. But I'll elaborate on the last point.

I posted a video of a juiced up ogre picking fights with activists - that guy showed up to spit on people without having guns as a driving issue. Notice also how a cop who most likely watched the whole thing let the guy go.

There's video evidence that rather large, rather angry fellows might show up at your protest. There's video evidence that having a pistol in that situation gets you passed over. There's video evidence that the cops don't give a damn what happens to you at protests.

The gun defused the situation. It kept people from getting injured. People do not throw punches if they think bullets might be the response.

If personal defense - regardless of the situation or what activity you are currently engaged in - is a foolish tactic, then I don't think you are pro-2nd at all. If we accept the idea that there are some situations where our personal defense is not a consideration, then we may as well just accept the idea that we will not be defending ourselves in any situation.

 

[Pericles]

Fisharmor, how about addressing my concern about OC at townhall meetings, and protests? You don't consider that already inherent tense situations could be the flashpoint? I'm not interested in sparking a violent situation. And I know RP isn't.

I see it as a foolish tactic and nothing more.

If one believes in self defense seriously enough to carry, why would one not be prepared for that defense at all times, including a meeting or protest? The point is that a possible threat seldom gives sufficient notice so that one can arm. If one does not carry at the event , then one is not carrying to or from the event - and by the same logic of not carrying, the weapon is in the vehicle to be stolen .....

As to the presence of a weapon being a "flashpoint" - would a person whi finds it tempting to bully someone with a weapon, be less tempted to bully an unarmed person? As to the fear that armed people are somehow more willing to respond to bullying with disproportionate force, an armed person would be familiar with the law pertaining to self defense or be deterred by other armed persons.

As to the "fear factor" of someone else being afraid because I am armed, how can I be responsible for the feelings of others? What about those who fear libertarians as somehow "dangerous"?

 

[edstephan]

Originally Posted by rmodel65
you do realize you are supporting racism correct?? you might find this interesting, for example a citizen can not carry to a polling location(so the sheriff can run off voters in GA) but look at say PA police cant carry to polling locations, so the people reign and can vote without being blockaded by a police force grasping for power....
http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/wp-c...a-gun-laws.pdf

I think what the poster was trying to say (and not so eloquently) was Gun Laws were initially put on the books was to keep Blacks from being armed and in a large part has been successful.
Current gun laws keep the weakest in society defenseless there by ensuring a large pool of victims to justify the expanse of government to "protect" these victims.

Over the last 50yrs, people have been conditioned to be afraid of guns, The schools have been reinforcing this over the last 20yrs. The only way to desensitize the sheeple is to be active and show them not just LEO's and Bad Guys carry guns.

When I was young no one gave a second thought of taking their hunting rifle or shotgun to school and locking it in their locker, going to class, and going hunting after school.

It all comes down to personal responsibility which has been conditioned out of society by government, the education system, our parents, and us.

An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%
Ed Stephan

 

[Deborah K]

I think what the poster was trying to say (and not so eloquently) was Gun Laws were initially put on the books was to keep Blacks from being armed and in a large part has been successful.
Current gun laws keep the weakest in society defenseless there by ensuring a large pool of victims to justify the expanse of government to "protect" these victims.

Over the last 50yrs, people have been conditioned to be afraid of guns, The schools have been reinforcing this over the last 20yrs. The only way to desensitize the sheeple is to be active and show them not just LEO's and Bad Guys carry guns.

When I was young no one gave a second thought of taking their hunting rifle or shotgun to school and locking it in their locker, going to class, and going hunting after school.

It all comes down to personal responsibility which has been conditioned out of society by government, the education system, our parents, and us.

An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%
Ed Stephan

I'm not talking about banning anything!!! I'm talking about the tactic of OC during demonstrations, etc. I think we SHOULD be able to open carry, conceal carry, carry carry, carry!!!!!!!

The ISSUE is whether or not it is a good tactic at demonstrations!


Geeeeeeeeeeeez


This is my fault. I should have been more specific at the get-go.

 

[Deborah K]

Well... maybe you should read what I already wrote, because I did directly address OC at political events.... quite a lot. But I'll elaborate on the last point.

I posted a video of a juiced up ogre picking fights with activists - that guy showed up to spit on people without having guns as a driving issue. Notice also how a cop who most likely watched the whole thing let the guy go.

There's video evidence that rather large, rather angry fellows might show up at your protest. There's video evidence that having a pistol in that situation gets you passed over. There's video evidence that the cops don't give a damn what happens to you at protests.

The gun defused the situation. It kept people from getting injured. People do not throw punches if they think bullets might be the response.

If personal defense - regardless of the situation or what activity you are currently engaged in - is a foolish tactic, then I don't think you are pro-2nd at all. If we accept the idea that there are some situations where our personal defense is not a consideration, then we may as well just accept the idea that we will not be defending ourselves in any situation.

Okay, so I don't agree with your puritanical view on the 2nd and that makes me anti- 2nd????

Buh-byeeee.......

 

[fisharmor]

My husband and I have several weapons. I'm so pro-2nd, it's almost stupid. My issue is with open-carry at demonstrations and town halls. I think it is too provacative and will cause problems we don't need.
.......
Okay, so I don't agree with your puritanical view on the 2nd and that makes me anti- 2nd????

So, I can infer from your statements that you consider me stupid.
You are pro-2nd and "almost stupid".
My puritanical view obviously goes beyond your set boundary.
Thus I have crossed beyond "almost stupid" into "actually stupid", right?

I and others have given you reasoned answers for why OC at demonstrations is a good idea. You counter reason with implications that I am stupid.

You're feeling this in your gut, not running this through your head. You are employing the exact same logic gates that Paul Helmke uses... which is to say, none at all. He, like most politicians, uses a lot of platitudes about rights and gun ownership being protected. But we see through it. And unfortunately for you, the same tactic can't be successfully used by people purporting to be our friends.

We set the bar a lot higher than you do, and we have reasons for doing so. If you want to lower the bar, you're going to have to reason with us. If you don't, then do not expect to be considered pro-2nd.

 

[fisharmor]

Also, there is room in my opinion for a middle ground between "pro-2nd" and "anti-2nd". Welcome to it.

 

[Deborah K]

So, I can infer from your statements that you consider me stupid.
You are pro-2nd and "almost stupid".
My puritanical view obviously goes beyond your set boundary.
Thus I have crossed beyond "almost stupid" into "actually stupid", right?

I and others have given you reasoned answers for why OC at demonstrations is a good idea. You counter reason with implications that I am stupid.

You're feeling this in your gut, not running this through your head. You are employing the exact same logic gates that Paul Helmke uses... which is to say, none at all. He, like most politicians, uses a lot of platitudes about rights and gun ownership being protected. But we see through it. And unfortunately for you, the same tactic can't be successfully used by people purporting to be our friends.

We set the bar a lot higher than you do, and we have reasons for doing so. If you want to lower the bar, you're going to have to reason with us. If you don't, then do not expect to be considered pro-2nd.

How in the hell did you conclude that I consider your stance as stupid??????? If anything, I was inferring that you are rigid. People who are rigid, aka puritanical in their thinking are not worth having a debate with.

My stance on OC during demonstrations is tactical - not emotional ( a typical response from a man regarding a woman ). As I mentioned, I think it is way too provacative and it is asking for trouble. Your argument that OC quells violence is unconvincing. And if you hadn't told me that someone was OCing in the video I would have never known it based on what I saw, which was basically 2 minutes of mass confusion.

Anyone can go to a demonstration and conceal their weapon if they are concerned about the need to defend themselves. Again, I am NOT for banning OC, that is NOT my argument. I am arguing on principle. If you don't like it, fine. That doesn't mean I am anti-2nd.

 

[Pericles]

Its hard for me to calibrate the provocative scale. It would seem that Harry Reid and Nancy find protest meetings provocative. Maybe it is those provocative signs that also need to be "toned down". What might constitute an "acceptable" sign. How much provocation does it take to make our point?

Be it a firearm or a sign, the opponents of the protests will fixate on something. What do guns have to do with health care plays their game. What business of the federal government is it to run health care is our game.

Depending on how radical you feel, the message is give back my freedom, or I'll take it back myself.