We're told open carry is wrong because it's allegedly a form of passive intimidation
But then we're told -- generally by the same crowd -- that certain limitations on guns are acceptable namely a prohibition on sawed-off shotguns because (get this) they can be easily concealed.
It seems disingenuous to me that gun owners are supposed to be subject to mutually excluding rules of conduct. It has every appearance of the Controllers seeking to avoid the accusation of their attempting to impose a ban by creating a de facto ban by way of creating so many constraints as to make lawful possession impossible.
Perhaps the Controllers -- if this is not the case -- would do a service to their cause if they were sort out amongst themselves what is the proper mode for carrying a weapon before they presume to reenter the debate at large.
so, what's the problem with this picture?
I see a bunch of people posing for a picture, so what.
Some folks support gun bullying.
Others, like myself, oppose gun bullying.
Here's another example of gun bullying.
How are they "gun bullying"?
Who are they bullying?
You? Because you get so worked up by a picture of firearms?
Who are they bullying?
Didn't you even watch the video?
There could have easily been a massacre that day.
I live in AZ, I know the laws.
That's what you get from this picture?
Sure am glad I'm not a student of yours, you seem to lack basic common sense.
Repeated assurances that they were safe to be around turned out to be a lie.
And a slander against the massacre victims.
But feel free to continue your defense of this neo Nazi white supremacist gun-licking ammosexual who massacred 4 people and his buddies.
You just find the truth inconvenient, that's all.
something which you have a very bad habit of not doing.
No link = No credibility
Since you can't or won't provide a link, you are just making things up again. It's just a matter of time before you say something that will get you another timeout.
Nothing about an AZ man killing 4, including a 15 month old baby, so, where's your proof that one of those featured in your photo killed 4?
Or is this another lie?
On edit: you're talking about the Marine in this video?
Yeah, HE did, but no one in the other picture you posted did anything wrong, nor were they "gun bullying".
Why does my mentioning the massacre disturb you?
Response to stone space (Reply #70)
Use these free, printable worksheets to practice and improve reading comprehension, vocabulary and writing.
You saw those cars coming, and you knew who those men were. They wanted you to see them. They wanted you to be afraid of them."
- Lillie McKoy, former mayor of Maxton talking about the KKK
By the mid-1950's the Civil Rights Movement was gaining momentum and the KKK decided they had to fight back. Their campaign of terrorism swept through many of the southern states, but largely fell flat in North Carolina.
James W. "Catfish" Cole, the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina, decided he was going to change that. Cole was an ordained minister of the Wayside Baptist Church in Summerfield, North Carolina, who regularly preached the Word of God on the radio. His rallies often drew as many as 15,000 people. As Cole told the newspapers: "There's about 30,000 half-breeds up in Robeson County and we are going to have some cross burnings and scare them up."
Cole made a critical mistake that couldn't be avoided by a racist mind - he was completely ignorant of the people he was about to mess with.
Dr. Perry was a black doctor in Monroe, NC, and helped finance a local chapter of the NAACP. One night at a meeting, the word was received that the Klan threatened to blow up Dr. Perry's house. The meeting broke up and everyone went home to get their guns.
Sipping coffee in Perry's garage with shotguns across their laps, the men agreed that defending their families was too important to do in haphazard fashion. "We started to really getting organized and setting up, digging foxholes and started getting up ammunition and training guys," Williams recalled. "In fact, we had started building our own rifle range, and we got our own M-1's and got our own Mausers and German semi-automatic rifles, and steel helmets. We had everything."
...of merry neo-nazi white supremacists and their AR-15s, in post #32.
You're either hallucinating or lying as nothing I said before or after you replied to me could in any sense be considered a defense of JT Ready and I submit you lack the capacity and/or integrity to offer an explanation as to how my words could be construed as such.
He has a very bad habit of twisting our words around, or flat out lying about what was posted, and then when called out on his lies, he turns himself into the victim.
It really is pathetic, yet entertaining to watch.
1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. Bring their friends who have guns.
2. If you can, make friends with those on the crew served weapons. Bring them as well. Borrow money from them, it gives them an added incentive to protect you.
3. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
Response to stone space (Reply #24)
it's either concealed carry, which I support, or open carry, which I oppose except when hunting or hiking in the back woods.
Some of us are pretty into that, and it very much lets us have it both ways.
Just a thought.
Carry on (as it were).
because if someone wants to harm you, how does a law stop them?
The OP is about those, who unlike yourself, lack the integrity to be forthright. I at least appreciate your honesty.
I asked why the OP *wanted* to open carry.
And I asked because I didn't want to assume anything. I really wanted to hear the reasons people want to open carry.
indicates a desire on my part but only inquires about a contradiction I see in Controller arguments.
you were including yourself in the we. And the title pretty clearly rejects the idea that open carry is wrong.
I don't come to this group, as a rule. My DU page is set to "Latest Threads" and when I saw the thread title it interested me. So I am not looking for an argument. I really was just curious.
That means I am part of the audience to whom the argument is being presented. None of that implies the audience is seeking a particular outcome.
For what it's worth, I live in an open-carry state so I have nothing to petition for in that regard.
Even though I will carry concealed well over 99% of the time.
There have however been times where necessity or comfort has required the removal of a concealing garment. With open carry allowed that is a valid option.
There have also been instances of overzealous police arresting a person or private citizens physically assaulting them because of a momentary exposure of a concealed pistol.
2.It says they have more right to walk in a store than I do.
3.I have a responsibility to keep any children with me safe from dangerous people.
4. How do I know they don't have plans to rob the store or bank they are in?
5. I am not allowed to carry around other dangerous substances, park my car in the center of the sidewalk and other things that present danger to the public.
6.When you are ill with a dangerous, communicable disease, you are expected to stay home and not pass it around.
7. People have been know to drop their guns and accidentally shoot someone TO DEATH!!
Controllers don't like uncomfortable questions, unless they're the ones doing the asking.
of paranoia. I hope you look at the numbers and do not fall for that.
And you never know who might be carrying a concealed weapon and may do the same thing.
It says nothing of the kind. Everyone has the same right to walk in a store.
You may be surrounded by dangerous people who are NOT carrying openly or at all, and the person carrying a weapon openly may not be dangerous in the least.
If they did, they would either have the weapon concealed or be brandishing it.
What dangerous substances are you not allowed to carry around? Carrying a weapon does not present a danger to the public. Misusing it does. The same holds true of driving a car.
I have no idea how this is supposed to be relevant to the matter at hand. Gun ownership as disease? Paging the CDC ...
Such cases are extremely rare, and happen when people are handling their guns, not merely carrying them in holsters.
Any other unnecessary fears I can allay for you today?
OC opponents seem to have a hard time trusting their fellow citizens.
But the answer you probably won't get from them is that they feel ALL forms of carry should be prohibited. They've spent a lot of time attacking open carry lately, but only because it is less politically popular than concealed carry -- which is a political juggernaut at this point.
And of concealed carry, I personally find open carry distasteful, primarily because it does make a lot of people uncomfortable. And I suspect (but this is just supposition) that a lot of people who open carry do it because they know if makes people uncomfortable.
I own several guns. It's not the guns that bother me. A long time ago, when I was a member of the NRA and certified Rifle Marksmanship Instructor, I was around Firearms a lot.
Whenever I see someone open-carry in public, my first reaction is that the person is a potential flake. Another concern is that I know it intimidates a lot of other people a lot more than it does me.
It's just bad manners and a sign that the carrier is an asshole.
There are other, non-lethal ways to protect yourself if you are so overcome by fear that you need to carry a gun at all times.
...less often than guns are used in self-defense. Do you believe in fire extinguishers?
Or protect our livestock from predators?
How about if I or my family is attacked?
Why would you deny us the means to defend ourselves from 2 legged predators?
How would you disarm criminals?
How would you keep firearms out of the US?
Are you in favor of only the police and military having firearms?
It appears to be a uniformed SWAT team of law enforcement. Welcome back from vacation.
Our military has guns because the bad guys have guns.
American citizens have guns because the bad guys have guns. Take guns away from lawful owners, and only the bad guys will have them.
What am I gonna do? Throw a can of beans or a bicycle tire at them?
...were read Goldilocks and the Three Bears exclusively as children. This one is too big, that one too small...
Everyone of them with a different plan. No unity other than "Guns Bad".
The Controllers even threaten us with arrest if we run for our lives.
Last edited Sun Feb 21, 2016, 08:02 AM - Edit history (1)
would not be visible. If no weapon is visible you have no reason to skip-out on the check.
And do you use similar logic on other matters, as well?
"Lesser of two evils" as it were.
You may want no-carry but the right to carry trumps your personal phobias and biases. Since you have cited a visible weapon as an excuse to skip-out on a restaurant check a non-visible (read: concealed) weapon would be your way of accommodating the rights of others.
Only pointing out that when theft is commited, that person should be arrested. To bad some think it is ok not to pay for services rendered and screw the server and restaurant owner.
Unlike those that would commit theft and deny people thier paycheck. People who commit theft should be arrested, are you law abiding or not? Simple question.
Of course it is passive intimidation. That's why you guys want it so bad. You need to feel powerful and dangerous and threatening.
And then your viagra runs out and we get the Kalamazoo shooter. Yep, another white middle aged nut goes off his meds and kills 7 with his legal gun, in a concealed carry state no less, and no one stopped him. There goes the argument.
Oh bluster away in response. Threaten away. Have fun. We're on the internet and your weapon doesn't intimidate anyone, and the intellect of a typical DU RKBA gun nutter doesn't intimidate anyone either.
And you seem unable to actually carry on an actual debate so you degenerate to insults.
If you want to have a debate, bring it. I'm more than capable. But apparently you thought you could come into this group and present the same tired, old debunked arguments and banal sexualized insults and still be entitled to pat yourself on the back for being just so awesome.
And then you realized we didn't share your opinion of you and you have dropped the arguments, doubled down on the insults. You're not new and you're not awe-inspiring. You're just lobbing bravado over the internet which you yourself just derided in your post. If you don't even like you where does that leave my obligations towards you?
So, you actually want to debate the OP or do you just want to go "WOOF! WOOF!" some more because you got beat-up by a girl -- over the internet?
What should be done about instances such as the Kalamazoo shooter? You cannot ban guns and you cannot deny the right to carry. So, open or concealed?
Well, if a single failure is the standard, there go the arguments for gun control.
Which is why you head to this place at warp speed every time you have one of your anti-gun talking points challenged: