Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 134

Thread: Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response

  1. #1
    Regular Member IdahoOpenCarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Hidden Springs, Idaho
    Posts
    38

    Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response

    Open Carry vs Concealed Carry

    I prefer to Open Carry because EVERY study shows that criminals will avoid armed persons. I also Open Carry because it often generates positive constructive discussions wherever I go, which advances our mission to promote our 2nd Amendment rights and naturalize the presence of guns in our communities.

    45 states allow Open Carry and every day, 10’s of thousands of Open Carriers are repelling bad guys across this nation and rarely if ever do you hear of those Open Carriers having to shoot anyone because criminals don’t attack citizens they know are armed.

    I do not Open Carry where it is illegal or where my situational awareness is impaired, like movie theaters or concerts where there is continual close contact with other participants, and where seating is tight such as amphitheaters, sporting events, race tracks.

    I would not Open Carry In high crime areas. A lion would not walk into a den of hyenas and I would never Open Carry in the high crime neighborhoods of Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit or Washington DC. I never want to challenge a criminal’s area of dominion; that task is for law enforcement officers.

    Yielding to wisdom and prudence dictates whether I Open or Conceal Carry.

    However, I am always uncomfortable Carrying Concealed because it presents to the criminal that I am unarmed, weak and vulnerable; attractive to the predator.

    There is no deterrent value to my carrying concealed. I am just another gazelle in the eyes of the hyenas. My probability of being a victim of a crime is totally unchanged when I have a gun hidden beneath my shirt.
    My Open Carrying gives the criminal the opportunity to make a well informed decision; an opportunity not provided by me when I Carry Concealed.
    Robbers, rapists or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they all have the instinct for self preservation. Outside of his den, a hyena will not attack a lion. To the bad guy, Open Carry portrays you as the lion with very sharp teeth that the hyena wants to steer clear of.
    I don’t want to be the victim who fought back and won. I don’t want to kill anyone. That is why I Open Carry. My goal is never to be a victim in the 1st place. I want to watch the 6 O’clock news and not be the topic of the news.
    When I leave my home whether I’m Open or Concealed carrying, some of my primary goals are:
    • To go about my tasks peaceably
    • To not be a victim of any crime
    • To avoid shooting anyone – ever – when possible

    In a Concealed Carry state, the bad guys always have to be wary, their situational awareness is more highly motivated than yours so the likelihood of you getting the drop on them is slim. They weigh the odds and proceed and watch for those who might be Concealed Carrying.

    Ask yourself this, if you are the target, when the bad guy’s attack you, will you have time to draw from your concealed position, maybe, but probably not.

    ALL OF THE STUDIES show that criminals avoid armed people – so – do you want to appear armed or appear unarmed as Concealed Carriers do?

    Remember, just like you, I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone, ever, if I don’t have to. And, not becoming a victim is exponentially more probable if I Open Carry by making it clear and obvious that I am armed.

    When the bad guy sees something that can quickly and painfully change or terminate his life, his sense of self preservation tells him to move on.

    It is a fact, Open Carriers create a circle of deterrence.

    If you are a jogger or bicyclists on the greenway, and you are seen carrying by a bad guy, you not only protected yourself and those around you, you probably protected that path from that bad guy ever attacking anyone there because he will associate that path as dangerous to him.

    Not only do we create a deterrent circle around ourselves, but around every person who is within that circle, within that restaurant or within that store. That circle of deterrence has a ripple effect on the bad guys too because they warn their buddies about those locations.

    It is important to realize that violent crime does not begin at the moment a bad guy confronts you with a weapon.

    Crime and violence take time to develop and there are five distinct stages: intent, interview, positioning, attack and reaction. The first three are most severely affected by those who Open Carry:
    1. Intent, which develops when the criminal observes easy prey.
    2. Interview , when he verifies the area is free of danger and creates plan.
    3. Positioning, when he sets up for the attack.

    If a bad guy sees an Open Carrier in any of the first three stages, in all probability, he will abort and find a weaker target unless it’s a drug crazed or mentally ill person.
    Concealed Carry presumes it is better to wait until the opponent has drawn his gun in the attack stage and then try to “fix” the situation. It is foolish to think that it is better to stop a crime in the fourth stage than to prevent it in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd stage.

    Concealed Carry has no effect in the first 3 stages, but if an Open Carrier is seen by the bad guy in any of the first 3 stages, the crime is probably deterred.

    Some critics of Open Carry claim that an Open Carrier will be the first one to be shot when a robber walks into a 7-11. There is no evidence that this has ever occurred; this is a red herring.

    When a robber sees an Open Carrier, they change their plans. In most cases, he is not prepared to commit murder or jeopardize his life when all he wanted to do was to get some cash. Self preservation demands that he abort and find a less risky victim.

    Another common criticism of Open Carry is that the firearm itself will be the target of theft, prompting a criminal attack simply to get your gun away from you. With only one exception in 2010 when an OCer failed to heed prudence and OC’d in a high crime area, there is no evidence that an Open Carrier has ever been targeted just to rob him of his gun; another red herring.

    Very often someone critical of Open Carry will cite some example of a uniformed police officer whose gun was taken by a violent criminal and yes, that does happen, but more than likely it occurred either because the officer was targeted merely for being a police officer, not for his gun. Most often, when guns are taken from police officers, it occurs when they are struggling to restrain a criminal.

    As to how the general public responds to Open Carry, 99% of the responses I’ve received have been positive and the other 1% were not negative, just skeptically inquisitive. This is the common experience with every Open Carrier who treats Open Carry as a personal responsibility to win the hearts and minds of those who are indecisive about the issue or slightly leaning in the other direction.

    There are some who are just afraid of guns for a variety of personal reasons; however, fear is overcome by natural exposure in everyday situations. Fear diminishes when firearms are carried in a responsible and peaceable way by the average citizen and the fearful will recognize that their fear was based on emotion and not fact.

    Open Carry is a very effectual way of helping people overcome fear of guns if done wisely with prudence. Arizonans don’t look twice at Open Carriers in their state and they are a great example of people becoming accustomed to guns and accepting them as a natural part of their society.

    A common complaint is that Open Carry makes some people uncomfortable. Liberty trumps comfort and censuring freedom is the beginning of oppression, which leads to persecution.

    Abraham Lincoln said, “Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as a heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors.”

    The Open Carried gun is “Assault Prevention Insurance” and most people will eventually become comfortable with it when they realize that they are safer because of its practice.

    There are some people I’ve spoken with who claim to want to have the tactical advantage of surprise.

    Why would anyone want to try to fight their way out of a bad situation, jeopardizing themselves and anyone with them when the bad situation can be avoided entirely by Open Carrying?

    Let me tell you, if anyone is going to be surprised, it is you.

    The likelihood of you surprising a bad guy is very slim and the likelihood of the bad guy getting the drop on you is practically guaranteed.

    You seldom know that you are going to be a victim until you are face to face with someone pointing a gun at you.

    You will have no time to quick draw or do anything but comply with the bad guy’s demands.

    Surprise as a defensive tactic is often based on unrealistic or ill thought out scenarios.

    I’ve had 6 guns and a knife pulled on me when I was a process server and not in any of those incidents could I have defended myself.

    Most criminals don’t draw their weapon until you are too close to do anything other than comply.

    The simple truth is that while surprise is a superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action not a defensive one. Defensive surprise is no more than damage control, and a last ditch effort to fight your way back out of a dangerous situation.

    If you shoot anyone - ever - you lose! Why?
    • You too could be shot, maimed or killed.
    • You will almost always lose financially, paying for defense lawyers and/or civil suits. You don’t want to be another George Zimmerman who has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself.
    • Shooting someone or seeing them shot stays with you forever –
    you never forget blood, guts & death. My time in Vietnam and on the LAPD has shown me that you remember every single dead or bloody body.

    Surprising an attacker with a gun invites a gun fight. Quite frankly... I'd prefer the bad guy be "surprised" to see my openly carried gun and decide not to attack.

    We want everyone to feel safe and comforted by our presence when we Open Carry, so dress nice, smile at everyone, be courteous and if questioned about your gun, be prepared with responses that are friendly and educational, i.e., “My family loves me and they want me to come home safely to them every night.”

    Tailor your responses to your situation and personality but always remember that your goal is to win the hearts and minds of the persons you are talking to and anyone listening on the periphery. Never be angry or confrontational. Every Open Carrier should an ambassador for the 2nd Amendment!

    The truth is that each day thousands of citizens in this nation Open Carry. They represent hundreds of thousands of man hours of peaceable, friendly, patriotic Open Carrying conducted continually in all but five states.

    Open Carry is a right, and it is lawfully exercised everyday by responsible gun owners. Remember this; “A right not practiced will be lost.”

    Although I Open Carry as a deterrent and self defense, equally, if not a more important reason for me is to naturalize the presence of guns in our community and promote our rights under the 2nd Amendment.

    Concealed Carrying does little to promote the 2nd Amendment when you are in public unless you start the conversation. OC almost always encourages pro-gun discussions.

    Other than Boston in the 1770’s there has never been a time in this nation’s history when we have been confronted with so many in the government who want to take our guns. They are continually positioning themselves to limit or destroy our inalienable rights and Open Carry is a visible wall of resistance to them.

    Open Carry sends a message to ant-gun elected officials and all of the anti-gun media and anti-gun groups that most Americans are patriotic pro-gun; pro-constitution and pro- 2nd Amendment – and our rights will not be infringed.

    Open Carry is a symbol of freedom;

    It is the American Flag.

    It is kryptonite to the bad guys.

    It is the first responder.

    It is the bold, beautiful face of the 2nd Amendment.

    Tony Snesko, Founder
    Idaho Carry, Open & Concealed
    Tony@IdahoCarry.org
    (Some of the points in this paper were contributed by Mainsail and other proponents of Open Carry and firearm publications.)
    Last edited by IdahoOpenCarry; 10-21-2013 at 11:50 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    73
    + 1.000.000

    Thank you kind Sir!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Findlay, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    89
    +Infinity

    Thank you for that very well written example of why Open Carry is good. I think you covered it exceptionally well, and I agree with everything you said. In fact, I've made similar statements to quite a few people in my circle. I would love to see this in print in a national gun rights magazine, so more people could read it. I think you've written it well enough that even some anti-OC, or maybe even anti-gun people may see the light, if only a glimpse.
    Last edited by JustJack; 10-11-2013 at 08:42 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    why?
    Posts
    432

    Thumbs up The $64,000 statement

    ?
    Last edited by scott58dh; 01-23-2014 at 08:02 PM. Reason: ?

  5. #5
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Maybe a year and a half ago, I was in a Taco Bell. A man and his grown son were at a table close by. The father asked me why I carried "like that" (OC). I replied, "So I don't have to use it."
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  6. #6
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Maybe a year and a half ago, I was in a Taco Bell. A man and his grown son were at a table close by. The father asked me why I carried "like that" (OC). I replied, "So I don't have to use it."
    That's a great comment but I hope it's apocryphal, because you're three things wrong, imo. You're sitting with your firearm exposed to the outside angle when seated, you said a 'threatening thing' to a person who just asked a question, and...


    wait for it...




    ...you're eating in a Taco Bell!!

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Not to take away from your humor (I did enjoy it), however:

    The firearm may have been seen before it was removed from exposure by SB's seating choice. (Although, keeping your strong side out could be argued as the seating equivalent of the OC choice itself.)

    He indicated a preference NOT to use the firearm. Quite the opposite of a threat. However, scouser will tell you that antis don't think clearly and may see any presence of a firearm as a threat.

    Taco Bell is one of the healthiest fast food choices you can make (if you pick the fresco menu items). I lost 75 pounds while keeping Taco Bell and Subway as fast food options.

  8. #8
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Not to take away from your humor (I did enjoy it), however:

    The firearm may have been seen before it was removed from exposure by SB's seating choice. (Although, keeping your strong side out could be argued as the seating equivalent of the OC choice itself.)

    He indicated a preference NOT to use the firearm. Quite the opposite of a threat. However, scouser will tell you that antis don't think clearly and may see any presence of a firearm as a threat.

    Taco Bell is one of the healthiest fast food choices you can make (if you pick the fresco menu items). I lost 75 pounds while keeping Taco Bell and Subway as fast food options.
    subway depends, if you get a footlong meatball marinara you're easily topping two big mac meals..... it's very easy to eat worse at subway then you would at mcdonalds, I've found when at mcdonalds (especially now that they have calorie counts on the menu) I'm careful to choose smaller menu options, at subway it becomes "well lets see take a foot long, with meat, oh yes cheeses, mayo, dressing,"
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    subway depends, if you get a footlong meatball marinara you're easily topping two big mac meals..... it's very easy to eat worse at subway then you would at mcdonalds, I've found when at mcdonalds (especially now that they have calorie counts on the menu) I'm careful to choose smaller menu options, at subway it becomes "well lets see take a foot long, with meat, oh yes cheeses, mayo, dressing,"
    Actually, they both depend. However, more than any other fast food restaurants, you can eat healthy and delicious at those two eateries. You still have to make smart choices. Watch out for fat-filled sauces, cheese, and sour cream. Choose leaner meats.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  10. #10
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Not to take away from your humor (I did enjoy it), however:

    The firearm may have been seen before it was removed from exposure by SB's seating choice. (Although, keeping your strong side out could be argued as the seating equivalent of the OC choice itself.
    The reason that I suggest not sitting with your firearm exposed in a restaurant, even though you are comfortable with OC in general is that I think you have less control over retention when seated. In a seating style with low booths, a person could easily be seated behind you and turn and grab your collar or encircle your neck and grab for your firearm. You are static (unlike when standing and walking around) and you are partially immobilized. YMMV.

    As to Taco Bell being a healthy FF choice for weight loss, yes bulimia does cause weight-loss but it's not ideal.

  11. #11
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Not to take away from your humor (I did enjoy it), however:

    The firearm may have been seen before it was removed from exposure by SB's seating choice. (Although, keeping your strong side out could be argued as the seating equivalent of the OC choice itself.)

    He indicated a preference NOT to use the firearm. Quite the opposite of a threat. However, scouser will tell you that antis don't think clearly and may see any presence of a firearm as a threat.

    Taco Bell is one of the healthiest fast food choices you can make (if you pick the fresco menu items). I lost 75 pounds while keeping Taco Bell and Subway as fast food options.
    The man and his son were avid supporters of our firearms rights and of citizens carrying guns. We entered into a pleasant conversation after the initial contact... which was what I related above. I'm not sure if they first saw my sidearm when I was gathering things for my meal or when I sat down. Nevertheless, the three of us enjoyed a nice discussion.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response

    M9: MMDV. I prefer my FA where I can get to it easily. That means that, often, it is more easily accessible to a gun-grabber. Even though I know that gun-grabs (seated or standing) are rare to non-existant, I still maintain situational awareness and use retention holsters. My FA remains accessible (and usually quite visible) when I am seated for the same reasons I OC.

    SB: Good to hear. I hope no one thought I was saying that the person with whom you spoke was an anti, just issuing a caution to always be aware of how our words or actions might be misconstrued by a nervous-Nellie bus driver, creating no end of unjustifiable hassle and expense.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  13. #13
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    M9: MMDV. I prefer my FA where I can get to it easily. That means that, often, it is more easily accessible to a gun-grabber. Even though I know that gun-grabs (seated or standing) are rare to non-existant, I still maintain situational awareness and use retention holsters. My FA remains accessible (and usually quite visible) when I am seated for the same reasons I OC.

    SB: Good to hear. I hope no one thought I was saying that the person with whom you spoke was an anti, just issuing a caution to always be aware of how our words or actions might be misconstrued by a nervous-Nellie bus driver, creating no end of unjustifiable hassle and expense.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Couldn't agree more.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Ozark, Mo
    Posts
    219

    IdahoOpenCarry

    Thank you for your post, your article was spot on. I am 64 years old and open carry every where I go (if legal to do so). I too have had nothing but positive experiences. And I hope I am making a difference in the education of people about the 2nd Amendment.

  15. #15
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    BTW, great job and great post by the OP. A lot of good thought went into this and your points are spot on and well taken.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  16. #16
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by scott58dh View Post
    [B]".....

    I'll close posting an article which I came across when researching this topic,,, "Should People Be Allowed to Carry Guns Openly? ,,, April 25, 2012"

    LINK,> http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/sh...ry-guns-openly

    ,,,and if you will, please, take the to view some of the comments at the bottom of article.

    Anticipating your POV.

    In the meantime,
    Peace & Carry Smart !
    Thanks for the link. Could not believe the following comment from a state senator "No People who choose to live in peace have the right not to be exposed to weapons and violence
    CONSTANCE N. JOHNSON, Democratic State Senator in Oklahoma Comment (62)

    I would like to know where this "RIGHT" is granted to folks......She is equating a preference or a degree of comfort with a right and we wonder why folks get confused.

  17. #17
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    "No People who choose to live in peace have the right not to be exposed to weapons and violence
    CONSTANCE N. JOHNSON, Democratic State Senator
    In a perfect world she would be right, but we live in a far imperfect one. althought I like to think we're getting better.

    As far as open carry, I am yet to see it cause problems. however recently I've been carrying concealed, mainly because it's getting colder here in PNW and I have to wear a jacket most of the time.
    however I have open carried several times in three states and it's never caused an issue. I think the anti-gun folk really simply over project to their extreme base how much open carry really affects the public. however I've seen pro-gun folks, mainly people who teach CCW classes be far more in opposition to open carry then anti gunners.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    No. She is wrong. Period. No such right exists.

    The only way it could exist would be to deprive others of their rights. By definition the exercise of one right cannot possibly infringe on the exercise of another. Therefore, there is no "right not to be exposed to weapons," with or without violence.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    I has been said that open carry might make one a target.

    It is known, on the other hand, that criminals do target those they believe to be weak/unarmed/easy pray.

    Which is more likely: that a criminal will target you because he knows you're armed, or that a criminal will target you because he believes you to be unarmed?

    Should either case arise, you will have been backed into a corner. In which case will you be readier to fight your way out of that corner?

    CC apologia is hilarious in its desperate attempts to find advantages, to the point of citing its own detriments. CC makes you a target for being apparently unarmed, but to a CC-only type, somehow that's insignificant compared to the far less likely possibility of OC making you a target for being armed.

    It's illogical, and this fact confirms my suspicion that most ardent CC-only types secretly fetishize their permission slip, but are subconsciously aware that they could never admit that, and must therefore find other spurious "advantages". A small few may be too timid to "attract attention" to their exercise of right, but this is hardly an advantage to CC: it's merely a response to one's own insecurities.

    In truth, the advantages stack very heavily in favor of OC. CC is only better than nothing, when it is the only choice.
    Last edited by marshaul; 10-14-2013 at 06:45 PM.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    No. She is wrong. Period. No such right exists.

    The only way it could exist would be to deprive others of their rights. By definition the exercise of one right cannot possibly infringe on the exercise of another. Therefore, there is no "right not to be exposed to weapons," with or without violence.
    Well... I could argue I have a right "not to be exposed to air".

    But that doesn't impose on you an obligation to build me a vacuum chamber. It's totally incumbent upon myself to avoid such exposure.

    You're very, very close, eye (far closer than most get), but you could still use a bit of refinement on this point.

    Your argument begs the question, unfortunately, by presupposing the RKBA. Rights are unable to conflict not because one predates the other (or is enumerated in the BoR), but because of their very nature. To examine this, let's substitute simple "me" for "me, with a gun". Being alive (being me) is my right because it doesn't infringe on her ability to "not be exposed" to me (she may leave my vicinity).

    My being alive doesn't prevent her from leaving and going somewhere without me (home, perhaps). "Not being exposed" to me is her right because it doesn't prevent me from being me. She exercises her right (by going home) without affecting me (I survive), and I exercise my right to live without it affecting her (she's free to go home).

    Now go back and re-substitute "me, with a gun" for "me". There's no difference.

    Someone quote this so eye can see it, please.
    Last edited by marshaul; 10-14-2013 at 06:59 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    she/he lost me at "wouldn't carry in a high crime neighborhood" had a hard time reading all of it after that
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    You are an arrogant ass. I take you off ignore--and am immediately confronted with some holier-than-thou condescension. Back to ignore with you. You ain't some guru on a mountain top with knowledge the rest of us don't have, but want. You are simply an arrogant ass.
    I'm sorry if I came off as arrogant and condescending. But I didn't present myself as a "guru on a mountain top with knowledge the rest of us don't have". I offered an articulate explanation of my reasoning, one which you are free to accept or reject on its merits – not mine.

    I'd be interested if folks have ideas for how I might have more tactfully conveyed my intent, which was to praise eye95 for being thoughtful on the matter, but to suggest that his way of articulating the reasoning could use some fallacy-proofing.

    I would hope the forum would take any opportunity to point out when my own reasoning is incomplete or implicitly fallacious.
    Last edited by marshaul; 10-14-2013 at 07:14 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I'm sorry if I came off as arrogant and condescending. But I didn't present myself as a "guru on a mountain top with knowledge the rest of us don't have". I offered an articulate explanation of my reasoning, one which you are free to accept or reject on its merits not mine.

    I'd be interested if folks have ideas for how I might have more tactfully conveyed my intent, which was to praise eye95 for being thoughtful on the matter, but to suggest that his way of articulating the reasoning could use some fallacy-proofing.

    I would hope the forum would take any opportunity to point out when my own reasoning is incomplete or implicitly fallacious.
    I found the analogy very useful. And well thought out and not at all arrogant.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Strange. The part I quoted and decried was not an analogy. Read it again. It is arrogant and condescending ass-hattery. The ass is grading the posts of others. He fancies himself a guru, but is simply acting like an ass.
    Nope don't read it that way, read it that he thought you were very close to his own way of thinking about it, a way that makes sense. You assumed the arrogance and condescension. Gotta remember that whole straw/rafter analogy.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Concealed Carry does nothing to promote the 2nd Amendment.
    BS!!!!! Arrogance of the highest order.

    Every permit issued is a clear message to criminals and elected vermin that the American people will not be deprived of their right to defend themselves and their family. Their unalienable right to defend their life, their liberty, and their property.

    There are many folks that I know who would not carry for self defense if it were not for a CC permit. The 2A was a academic discussion that they did not participate in, they simply had no interest in the issue. They choose to exercise their 2A in a manner that suits them. Here you are telling them that they do not promote the 2A.

    BS!!!!! Arrogance of the highest order.

    I do not place people on ignore, and I ain't been angry in over 30 years, but buddy, you came damn close to getting put on ignore and I am angry.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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