• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why are advocates for OC disliked so much?

kadar

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
50
Location
, ,
The conceal carry crowd really dislikes our method of carry. Isn't the 2nd a right no matter how you decide excercise is? I like their argument that we do it for attention. That's all I ever hear.




Curmudgeon said:
While many claim to support the right to keep and bear arms, precious few support the practice.


You could substitute free speech and 1st Amendment in both the above quotes and it would still valid with what goes on in the world today. :(
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
You could substitute free speech and 1st Amendment in both the above quotes and it would still valid with what goes on in the world today. :(

You could probably substitute any right in there and it would be valid. Most people don't seem to mind when a criminal's rights are violated (such as an illegal search that turns up illegal items) and will even willfully give up their rights if they think doing so will make them safer. And that's usually what it comes down to, feeling "safe."
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
What I've experienced, is this. CCers, the ones that don't like OCers, see our activity as something that could cause the state to infringe on their licensed privilege to CC. Never mind that we're exercising a right. They just don't want to lose the privilege they've been granted by the state, to conceal. And all us troublemakers are gonna do is upset the apple cart.
 

USMC1986

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
78
Location
USA
I think the bolded part is part of the problem when most people try to come up with a counter arguement, and it loops right back into your second sentence. If I was going to commit a crime it would be well thought out, but I'm not a criminal. Most actual criminals don't put a whole lot of thought into their actions. And even when they do they are typically concerned with self preservation.

Instead people tend to project what they think THEY would do in such a situation onto others rather than trying to look at it from the other person's POV. Which leads to people pushing something to the exclusion of the facts/reality. Whether its the "blood in the streets" (antis who don't trust theirself/others with weapons), "OCing makes me immune to crime" (I personally haven't seen people claim this, but was accused of it on another board before being banned for using facts/logic), or the "OCers will be targeted first" (used by people who think from their POV and not from the POV of the criminal), the whole projection of one's views is a rather large problem that is everywhere.

And I would be careful with that "real question" remark as following that logic one could easily take it to the point of "well you shouldn't have a gun because chances are you won't become a victim of violent crime and thus don't need it." It's a cycle of: you are less likely to need it because you and others have it which helps to keep criminals at bay, but once you don't have it the criminals are braver and thus you are more likely to need it. Just look at the before/after crime rates for multiple places that have banned weapons.

I try not to sit here and think about what I believe others will or will not do. It's a uncertainty that doesn't sit well with me so I'll continue to do what I believe is in my best interest when it comes to how I carry and where I do it. I'm saying that if I was going to try and get what I wanted with intent to harm whomever got in my way, then I would put a drop on the one who openly carried. I wouldn't exactly mistake that for a well thought-out plan if I were you. Granted it does take the ultimate BG to have that kind of intent and while encountering a BG is minimal, encountering the ultimate type of BG is even more extremely rare. The better number of criminals do care about self-preservation but that shouldn't allow you to believe that they won't have the "I'll do whatever it takes" attitude. Look at the North Hollywood Shootout criminals. They had self-preservation on their minds and were shooting anyone that tried to stop them. I wouldn't of want to have been openly carrying in that bank that morning...

I am careful with that real question that I presented earlier. Yes people could follow that logic that you have mentioned and I would reply: "While the real reality we all face is that most of us will never be a victim to a violent crime, that doesn't mean that it cannot happen. Carrying guns is a safety precaution and a means to preserve ones life and others in the event it's use is needed. We all hope to never have to use it(I hope we all do) but it's there if we do, much like the seat-belt in a vehicle..."
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
The conceal carry crowd really dislikes our method of carry. Isn't the 2nd a right no matter how you decide excercise is? I like their argument that we do it for attention. That's all I ever hear.

I do it because its ******* hot in LV and I don't always like wearing the coat. When cops ask me why I'm oc'ing that's what I've been saying. I can cc also (which I do always in the casinos)
 

Truckdriver1975

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
56
Location
Lansing, MI
If looks could kill I would have died tonight at the ice-cream store. I got my daughter a sundae and we sat down at a table for her to eat it. I glanced at a table near by and a lady there was giving me a death stare. She didn't see a family enjoying something cold at the end of a hot day. All she saw was my compact size pistol sitting harmlessly in a holster on my side. She didn't look scared or nervous, just very offended. My wife calls people like that LTs (Lib-Tards). Oh well, I can only please so many people in a day and this just wasn't her day.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
If looks could kill I would have died tonight at the ice-cream store. I got my daughter a sundae and we sat down at a table for her to eat it. I glanced at a table near by and a lady there was giving me a death stare. She didn't see a family enjoying something cold at the end of a hot day. All she saw was my compact size pistol sitting harmlessly in a holster on my side. She didn't look scared or nervous, just very offended. My wife calls people like that LTs (Lib-Tards). Oh well, I can only please so many people in a day and this just wasn't her day.

Piss off a libtard buy another gun.
 
Last edited:

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
I try not to sit here and think about what I believe others will or will not do. It's a uncertainty that doesn't sit well with me so I'll continue to do what I believe is in my best interest when it comes to how I carry and where I do it. I'm saying that if I was going to try and get what I wanted with intent to harm whomever got in my way, then I would put a drop on the one who openly carried. I wouldn't exactly mistake that for a well thought-out plan if I were you. Granted it does take the ultimate BG to have that kind of intent and while encountering a BG is minimal, encountering the ultimate type of BG is even more extremely rare. The better number of criminals do care about self-preservation but that shouldn't allow you to believe that they won't have the "I'll do whatever it takes" attitude. Look at the North Hollywood Shootout criminals. They had self-preservation on their minds and were shooting anyone that tried to stop them. I wouldn't of want to have been openly carrying in that bank that morning...

I am careful with that real question that I presented earlier. Yes people could follow that logic that you have mentioned and I would reply: "While the real reality we all face is that most of us will never be a victim to a violent crime, that doesn't mean that it cannot happen. Carrying guns is a safety precaution and a means to preserve ones life and others in the event it's use is needed. We all hope to never have to use it(I hope we all do) but it's there if we do, much like the seat-belt in a vehicle..."

Ahh, but you are already thinking about what others will/won't do. After all, what is in your best interest is based off of how others will act/react to your actions. Simply carrying because it improves your chances of surviving a hostile encounter is thinking about others (they will either stop their attack, or flat out not execute their attack due to the weapon).

But the point of my post is that one can not properly come up with an arguement/counter-arguement without at least trying to look at it from the other side.
 

gobbly

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
75
Location
Utah
CC by permit is not exercising a 2A right, it is exercising a privilege. A right should never be subject to being treated as a privilege. Somebody had a saying about that a long time ago, something about sacrificing liberty for security deserves neither.

can't help but play devils advocate and point out that the 2A does mention a well regulated militia. I've never been a fan of the wording of the 2A, its vague, could be seen as contradictory, and feels like it's two independent thoughts joined together for some reason. But it leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation, and the way it's interpreted at this point is to allow for some state regulation.

The quote you're looking for is Ben Franklin.
 
Last edited:

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
can't help but play devils advocate and point out that the 2A does mention a well regulated militia. I've never been a fan of the wording of the 2A, its vague, could be seen as contradictory, and feels like it's two independent thoughts joined together for some reason. But it leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation, and the way it's interpreted at this point is to allow for some state regulation.

The quote you're looking for is Ben Franklin.
"Well Regulated" didn't mean then what it's generally accepted as now.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly,

The full page is here.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
can't help but play devils advocate and point out that the 2A does mention a well regulated militia. I've never been a fan of the wording of the 2A, its vague, could be seen as contradictory, and feels like it's two independent thoughts joined together for some reason. But it leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation, and the way it's interpreted at this point is to allow for some state regulation.

The quote you're looking for is Ben Franklin.

what's vague about .... "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". there is no other way to interpret this

BTW, CC is a right, as it is a form of carry. but by them issuing a permit for it has made it a privlege

constitutional carry is the way to go
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
what's vague about .... "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". there is no other way to interpret this

BTW, CC is a right, as it is a form of carry. but by them issuing a permit for it has made it a privlege

constitutional carry is the way to go

Plus one must keep in mind what a militia was during the framing~~it was every able bodied man~~now it would be every able bodied man and woman. During and before the revolution every subject was expected to fight for the common wealth when called, including native Americans. That is why most NA fought against the new government. As citizens of this country we cannot relinquish our responsibility to the constitution and our nation. That means not only should we be armed we must be armed. State Police and NG are not militia they are government troops, the very thing the bill of rights is set out to protect us from. One with enough ambition in learning only has to read the entire document to know that the bill of rights is there to protect the people from the government. But don't stop there study history. The second amendment is NOT about hunting, or collecting, sports, or even self defense. It is about putting muscle to all of our rights.

We are the militia!
 

Medic1210

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
298
Location
Rockingham, NC
plus one must keep in mind what a militia was during the framing~~it was every able bodied man~~now it would be every able bodied man and woman. During and before the revolution every subject was expected to fight for the common wealth when called, including native americans. That is why most na fought against the new government. As citizens of this country we cannot relinquish our responsibility to the constitution and our nation. That means not only should we be armed we must be armed. State police and ng are not militia they are government troops, the very thing the bill of rights is set out to protect us from. One with enough ambition in learning only has to read the entire document to know that the bill of rights is there to protect the people from the government. But don't stop there study history. The second amendment is not about hunting, or collecting, sports, or even self defense. It is about putting muscle to all of our rights.

We are the militia!

qft!!
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
Plus one must keep in mind what a militia was during the framing~~it was every able bodied man~~now it would be every able bodied man and woman. During and before the revolution every subject was expected to fight for the common wealth when called, including native Americans. That is why most NA fought against the new government. As citizens of this country we cannot relinquish our responsibility to the constitution and our nation. That means not only should we be armed we must be armed. State Police and NG are not militia they are government troops, the very thing the bill of rights is set out to protect us from. One with enough ambition in learning only has to read the entire document to know that the bill of rights is there to protect the people from the government. But don't stop there study history. The second amendment is NOT about hunting, or collecting, sports, or even self defense. It is about putting muscle to all of our rights.

We are the militia!
Most American Indians fought for the British because they had to pick a side, and they thought they were picking the winning side. They had seen the strength of the British army during the French and Indian war (1754-1763). I'm pretty sure THEY did not consider themselves to be subjects of the British king. Unfortunately for them, they picked the wrong side. And it cost them, dearly.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Most American Indians fought for the British because they had to pick a side, and they thought they were picking the winning side. They had seen the strength of the British army during the French and Indian war (1754-1763). I'm pretty sure THEY did not consider themselves to be subjects of the British king. Unfortunately for them, they picked the wrong side. And it cost them, dearly.

We fought with the British for the same reason we fought against the Union, the colonists and the Yankees did not recognize us as people. And the British did recognize NA as subjects the same as they do and did for every part of the commonwealth. The US STILL divides people by race in this country.
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
We fought with the British for the same reason we fought against the Union, the colonists and the Yankees did not recognize us as people. And the British did recognize NA as subjects the same as they do and did for every part of the commonwealth. The US STILL divides people by race in this country.

Maybe the British did, but I can guarantee you, most Indian nations saw themselves as separate and sovereign. And there were MANY Indian tribes that fought for the French against the British.
Potawatomis, Ojibwas, Ottawas, Delawares and Shawnee, among others.

Look, all I'm saying is, ......you know, I don't know what the hell I'm saying now. (Got seriously distracted by a phone call.) Anyway, time to get back on track.

I think advocates for OC are disliked because we're too nice. :)

(FYI, don't know why I mention it, but my paternal grandmother always claimed we were part Cherokee. True? I dunno, but there it is. )

 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
can't help but play devils advocate and point out that the 2A does mention a well regulated militia. I've never been a fan of the wording of the 2A, its vague, could be seen as contradictory, and feels like it's two independent thoughts joined together for some reason. But it leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation, and the way it's interpreted at this point is to allow for some state regulation.

The quote you're looking for is Ben Franklin.

"Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither and lose both."

If you want to break up 2a like that, look it this way.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state,"

What does that mean? The military? I believe most would agree. What else would you consider a well regulated militia? Some believe it to be the citizen iarmy. Other would say the armed forces. Who knows. BUT!!!!!! One of the things you are missing is this: ,

"....necessary to a free state(COMMA), the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

A comma is used to connect two independent clauses. It generally means "and" "or" "but". So using either one of those, I will show 2a again.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, OR the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

By basic definition of its contents, 2a tells the .gov that our rights are not to be regulated. And the last words tell it all. "Shall not be infringed." I believe it to mean that 2a supports a regulated army, and supports the peoples right to bear arms.

Nothing in 2a allows state regulation. Period.
 

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
I haven't had the chance to read the rest of the thread, but last night I had the opportunity to speak with two kind ladies who are both concealed carriers, though not the typically-thought-of-as-gun-owner sorts. While I disagreed with their ultimate point, I understood from where it was derived. The short of it is that open carriers are associated with people in political movements who have historically advocated, directly or indirectly, a willingness to use violence as a means to resolution of their personal viewpoint's dispute. E.g. tea party folks expressing a desire, real or exaggerated, to "provide fertilizer to the tree of liberty".

While I hope to get another chance to speak with these women, I can understand where they are coming from. I think they're wrong, but I "get it" - they see people who are willing to express violent and destructive thoughts towards them merely based on a difference in political ideology, and associate it with the percentage of openly perceived pistol presence permeating the group.

I resemble that remark.
 
Top