Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response

OC for ME · Nov 7, 2013

That is one legitimate approach.

I, however, and obviously, use the "call BS when you read it" approach. I am hard pressed to let a false premise be debated as if the false premise were not a false premise. Liberals always desire to debate a false premise. This provides their BS with some measure of legitimacy that is does not deserve. Others less knowledgeable than many here may read these BS posts and draw conclusions and make "life choices" based on a false premise.

I'm certainly not the end all and be all, but I'll call BS when I see, if I see it. If I am wrong on the call, I'll retract or amend.

eye95 · Nov 7, 2013

OC for ME said:
No truer words have ever been spoken SFCRetired. What should we do when a OC discussion board is infiltrated by CC only agent provocateurs?

Engage them for a while, being rational. If they respond with ration, continue. You may alter their perception. At least you will have an impact on someone viewing the convo. If they are being irrational. Use one or two posts to logically refute what they are saying and then just move on.

Protracted conversations, where at least one party is trying to "win" the discussion, have at least two losers.

OC for ME · Nov 7, 2013

Well stated. I do have a propensity to become tedious from time to time. I gotta work on this a wee bit more diligently.

I will be moving on from me being tedious.

Primus · Nov 7, 2013

jeffrey-r said:
I just feel like you are not reading the survey correctly.

Q: Have you ever been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed citizen? 37% agree.
You say: This means 63% of criminals are not scared by an armed citizen.
Actually says: This means 63% of criminals either A) are not scared by an armed citizen or B) have never encountered an armed citizen.

The part to focus on is the 37% of criminals who admitted to being deterred or otherwise engaged, at some point, by an armed citizen. It's completely possible that the remainder just never had the opportunity.

This is evidenced by the next question:
Q:Thinking of all the crimes you ever committed . . . .Did you ever run into a victim armed with a gun? 34% yes.

It's not that criminals state they are not scared of citizens with firearms, it's that they had never run into them.

You said "they don't fear getting shot by someone during a home invasion." But the survey says "74% agreed that "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot."

So I don't understand why you are drawing conclusions that are the opposite of what the report actually says.

I don't have the website in front of me, I was mayhave misread it. I thought it said the 74% were not concerned with someone being home and armed.

I agree with you on the 34% maybe never running into a person who was armed.

Primus · Nov 7, 2013

OC for ME said:
No truer words have ever been spoken SFCRetired. What should we do when a OC discussion board is infiltrated by CC only agent provocateurs?

I mayhave misread the Thread Title. I thought it said Open Carry VS Concealed Carry- a comprehensive response. If your screen says a different title, then maybe my computer is broken.

I was under the VS portion meant that someone (the OP) was looking for BOTH sides of the coin, with the coin being carrying a firearm on a daily basis. I'm not sure if it was a rhetorical question and you didn't want, nor expected, anyone to pose an OPINION on CC.

You tote yourself as calling BS, so throw the flag up on your own play. What is my agenda? You clearly think there is one, but have failed to throw it out there. I believe at least 2 or 3 other posters have called you out on this, to either state the agenda or drop the illusions. What could my "agenda" possibley be? Changing OCers to CCers? Not remotely. It would never happen in a million years, nor would I ever try. I personally don't give a fig how or if you carry. I'm glad people do carry, but if they didn't, no sweat off my back. I do and will continue to carry as long as legal to do so and will continue to fight (vote) for those rights.

Finally, did anyone miss my original post where I put it straight out (first line I believe) that I am a CCers, due mainly to my State? I make no attempts to lead you astray in facts about me. "I is what I is".

Barring any other attacks on character, attempting to move on.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 7, 2013

Would it be because you are afraid of the implied threat of violence of your state?

Primus · Nov 7, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
Would it be because you are afraid of the implied threat of violence of your state?

No more then I drive the speed limit because of the threat of violence from my state.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 8, 2013

Primus said:
No more then I drive the speed limit because of the threat of violence from my state.

Glad you are finally admitting it. Although in an evasive meant to dodge manner.

Primus · Nov 8, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
Glad you are finally admitting it. Although in an evasive meant to dodge manner.

Since you didn't get the sarcasm, or chose to respond in kind, No. I don't live in the fear of threat of violence from anyone. I'm citizen of the United States. Not the Congo where you just do w/e you want whenever you want. I actually follow the constitution, not just parts that let me shoot cool guns. So I happen to CC because I get to exercise my rights, as stated in the U.S Constitution and my state's constitution.

Can we move on or does this still have to be personal?

Anyone else have something to add either for either side? OC or CC?

OC for ME · Nov 8, 2013

Read the OP again. It is not a OC vs. CC post/discussion. It is a OC good, CC bad, post/discussion. Your attempts to portray the op in any other light confirms for me that there are CC only agent provocateurs who are members of this site.

I did call the OP out on one issue re CC, it is that CC is a 2A supporting statement, even though nobody by the CCer will know that the statement is being made. The post where I went nuts regarding that contention clearly explains why CC does support the 2A. Now, if we could get rid of permission slips then OCDO will morph into a gun-nut web site talking about cool tools and toys.

marshaul · Nov 8, 2013

Primus said:
No. I don't live in the fear of threat of violence from anyone.

So, you won't mind then if I mob-up and start extorting protection money out of you? At lest, so long as I keep the threats implicit?

sudden valley gunner · Nov 10, 2013

Primus said:
Since you didn't get the sarcasm, or chose to respond in kind, No. I don't live in the fear of threat of violence from anyone. I'm citizen of the United States. Not the Congo where you just do w/e you want whenever you want. I actually follow the constitution, not just parts that let me shoot cool guns. So I happen to CC because I get to exercise my rights, as stated in the U.S Constitution and my state's constitution.

Can we move on or does this still have to be personal?

Anyone else have something to add either for either side? OC or CC?

I got the sarcasm, did you get that your sarcastic statement is also a tacit admission you change your behavior because of the threat of violence from the state. An easy concept one you refused to recognize no matter how many times it has been pointed out to you. Then you use a typical fallacy argument that wrongly attributes absolute liberty to the violence of Congo. Let me get to that in a minute.

You are the one that mentioned you CC because of your state, the only power the state has is of violence. You also mention in this post "get to" meaning someone is allowing you too, this isn't "constitutional", liberty doesn't mean having permission to exercise a right. You say you follow the constitution yet your posts in other threads points out that you don't, maybe it is because you don't understand the constitution, which is a law against government and specifically points out restrictions it was to have. Ones you feel perfectly justifiable (this is were the agenda comes in, but now that I realize your occupation it makes more sense to me) to infringe upon contrary to constitutional law.

Now let's get to the anti tactic of using fallacy argument of comparing US to troubled African countries. Next you tell me that if I want anarchy move to Somalia. Which is far from anarchistic, but is doing way better without government than it did with and is doing better compared to other African countries like the Congo. The problem in the Congo isn't because you can do what ever you want. The problems in Congo can assuredly be pointed as to problems of people fighting for control, or government. The insinuation that you are making is that it is our laws that keep us from being Congo, that is an absurdity. I will assert that it is our laws like the unconstitutional war on drugs that create the very same violence and disorder in our country that you see in the Congo. Of course as a follower of the constitutional, you don't enforce these unconstitutional laws right?

Believe me nothing personal here at all. Folks like you come and go on this forum all the time, the way you post , the rationalizations you use, easily point out that you have a certain mindset, a certain political agenda. I hope you develop a thick skin and stick around maybe you'll learn something if you can keep an open mind, I know I have learned many things over the years.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 10, 2013

marshaul said:
So, you won't mind then if I mob-up and start extorting protection money out of you? At lest, so long as I keep the threats implicit?

+1

Primus · Nov 10, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
I got the sarcasm, did you get that your sarcastic statement is also a tacit admission you change your behavior because of the threat of violence from the state. An easy concept one you refused to recognize no matter how many times it has been pointed out to you. Then you use a typical fallacy argument that wrongly attributes absolute liberty to the violence of Congo. Let me get to that in a minute.

You are the one that mentioned you CC because of your state, the only power the state has is of violence. You also mention in this post "get to" meaning someone is allowing you too, this isn't "constitutional", liberty doesn't mean having permission to exercise a right. You say you follow the constitution yet your posts in other threads points out that you don't, maybe it is because you don't understand the constitution, which is a law against government and specifically points out restrictions it was to have. Ones you feel perfectly justifiable (this is were the agenda comes in, but now that I realize your occupation it makes more sense to me) to infringe upon contrary to constitutional law.

Now let's get to the anti tactic of using fallacy argument of comparing US to troubled African countries. Next you tell me that if I want anarchy move to Somalia. Which is far from anarchistic, but is doing way better without government than it did with and is doing better compared to other African countries like the Congo. The problem in the Congo isn't because you can do what ever you want. The problems in Congo can assuredly be pointed as to problems of people fighting for control, or government. The insinuation that you are making is that it is our laws that keep us from being Congo, that is an absurdity. I will assert that it is our laws like the unconstitutional war on drugs that create the very same violence and disorder in our country that you see in the Congo. Of course as a follower of the constitutional, you don't enforce these unconstitutional laws right?

Believe me nothing personal here at all. Folks like you come and go on this forum all the time, the way you post , the rationalizations you use, easily point out that you have a certain mindset, a certain political agenda. I hope you develop a thick skin and stick around maybe you'll learn something if you can keep an open mind, I know I have learned many things over the years.

Well put, so I'll try to explain a few points in return.

Correct, I openly admit that I mainly CC because of my state. It is YOUR words and YOUR opiniong that it's because of the threat of violence. I don't see it as that way. First, it's not even a law that it HAS to be CC. It's just the culture , of citizens and police, don't really like it. Second, even if I did have a run in with the police, I wouldn't be afraid they would do me any violence. I'd be concerned I'd go to jail. It's two different things.

Let me try and put it this way. When you are in school, any school, and the teacher says "stop this" or "do this", why do did you do it? Out of FEAR that said teacher would violently beat you? No. It was out of fear of adminstrative action. Such as detainment (detention). I pay my taxes because I'm supposed to and they just bill you more if you don't. I follow laws because I don't feel like getting arrested and going to court. Nothing that I do is from the fear of anyone. Again, each to his own. You may fear anything you want. I just see things in a bit more civilized manner.

I made the example of the Congo, I admit a well used one, simpley because there needs to be SOME rules and/or laws. The .gov was created many many years ago for that exact reason. Now I know you see the tyranny and oppression and power grabbing, etc. etc. Just remember, every society has had SOME form of .gov from the colonies to the mayans to the egyptians. When the settlers came here, they still formed town councils. They still had "laws" and rules. Why? Just for the hell of it? It's just how it works. The "fight" you talk about is always about HOW MUCH control and rules are set up. That's it.

Unconstitutional drug laws? I won't even bother with that. Not the place or the time.

I do plan on hanging on around, since I like guns and I like the movement and I'd like to support if possible. You can keep assigning "mind set and political agenda" to me all you want. Your just the kind of guy that seems to see threats everywhere even when they aren't there. I don't have any agenda other then to talk to some guys about guns and hopefully make it better for us. If there was any "agenda" it would be to bridge the gap and get guys to calm down with the fear mongering about the .gov.

marshaul · Nov 10, 2013

Primus said:
simpley because there needs to be SOME rules and/or laws. The .gov was created many many years ago for that exact reason. Now I know you see the tyranny and oppression and power grabbing, etc. etc.

False. Some of us my question whether an entity taking the form of government is capable of delivering these ends without spiraling into corruption and authoritarianism, but none of us fault government because it has "SOME rules and/or laws". None of us thinks government has gone too far because of the laws it has dealing with murder, theft, rape, fraud, etc etc etc.

But the simple fact that government might be rightful to use force against murder (and murderers) doesn't mean that any time government decides to use force is automatically rightful. The propriety of "SOME" laws does not equate to the propriety of any and all laws, blank-check style.

At it happens, we have a system in America for deciding where this line of "propriety" should be drawn. Libertarians have formulated this into an axiomatic "Principle of Non-Aggression", but the philosophical foundations are far older than that:

Thomas Jefferson said:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

The gap will be bridged the instant government uses only legitimate powers, and not a moment beforehand. You cannot talk or cajole me into condoning aggression and the deprivation of right. These are real, serious issues, and to dismiss them as "fear mongering" reeks of blind apologia.

It is not "fear mongering" to point out that drug possession is non-aggressive, and therefore outside the legitimate purview of government. It is fact, not fear-mongering, to point out that the government has damaged and destroyed the lives of millions of such non-aggressive individuals, and that therefore the government uses aggressive violence on a literally societal scale.

The only justification for such behavior on the part of government is "the greater good", but as we know thanks to Mr. Jefferson, the legitimate powers of government do not extend to anything it decides furthers its transient notion of "the greater good", unless those things are actually injurious to others.

OC for ME · Nov 10, 2013

Primus said:
Well put, so I'll try to explain a few points in return.

Correct, I openly admit that I mainly CC because of my state. It is YOUR words and YOUR opiniong that it's because of the threat of violence. I don't see it as that way. First, it's not even a law that it HAS to be CC. It's just the culture , of citizens and police, don't really like it. Second, even if I did have a run in with the police, I wouldn't be afraid they would do me any violence. I'd be concerned I'd go to jail. It's two different things.

<snip>

At last the truth is revealed. You choose to CC because of what others believe to be the appropriate manner in which exercise your 2A is.

stevebowhunts · Nov 10, 2013

Fear Mongering????

Primus said:
Well put, so I'll try to explain a few points in return.

Correct, I openly admit that I mainly CC because of my state. It is YOUR words and YOUR opiniong that it's because of the threat of violence. I don't see it as that way. First, it's not even a law that it HAS to be CC. It's just the culture , of citizens and police, don't really like it. Second, even if I did have a run in with the police, I wouldn't be afraid they would do me any violence. I'd be concerned I'd go to jail. It's two different things.

Let me try and put it this way. When you are in school, any school, and the teacher says "stop this" or "do this", why do did you do it? Out of FEAR that said teacher would violently beat you? No. It was out of fear of adminstrative action. Such as detainment (detention). I pay my taxes because I'm supposed to and they just bill you more if you don't. I follow laws because I don't feel like getting arrested and going to court. Nothing that I do is from the fear of anyone. Again, each to his own. You may fear anything you want. I just see things in a bit more civilized manner.

I made the example of the Congo, I admit a well used one, simpley because there needs to be SOME rules and/or laws. The .gov was created many many years ago for that exact reason. Now I know you see the tyranny and oppression and power grabbing, etc. etc. Just remember, every society has had SOME form of .gov from the colonies to the mayans to the egyptians. When the settlers came here, they still formed town councils. They still had "laws" and rules. Why? Just for the hell of it? It's just how it works. The "fight" you talk about is always about HOW MUCH control and rules are set up. That's it.

Unconstitutional drug laws? I won't even bother with that. Not the place or the time.

I do plan on hanging on around, since I like guns and I like the movement and I'd like to support if possible. You can keep assigning "mind set and political agenda" to me all you want. Your just the kind of guy that seems to see threats everywhere even when they aren't there. I don't have any agenda other then to talk to some guys about guns and hopefully make it better for us. If there was any "agenda" it would be to bridge the gap and get guys to calm down with the fear mongering about the .gov.

Fear Mongering???? Have you noticed what the Obama Administration is doing with your liberty????

Primus · Nov 10, 2013

stevebowhunts said:
Fear Mongering???? Have you noticed what the Obama Administration is doing with your liberty????

I agree, he's wrecking them.

My fear mongering was referring to things like the "threat of violence" thing. How supposedly everything we do is from some threat of violence from the .gov. Then heard some other guys comment that the .gov kills MILLIONS of people a year. It's fear mongering because it paints some crazy violent image of what we deal with. If someone read some of this stuff and wasn't aware it was US they would think it was China. It's not. remotely.

Again, I agree that our right are getting eroded by the administration. There is no doubt about that. As there is no doubt about we need to stand up and fight. But when you make extreme statements, you turn off alot of people who are in the middle that we NEED on our side. They do a drive by and see some of the comments and think "wow that's crazy" and move on. It then sparks conversations about us gun people that aren't in our favor.

It's the same battle we all fight. It's same reason the forum doesn't want bashers and anti leos and want's to keep the topics on topic. Because if this turned into a anti ANYTHING (.gov, leo, liberals, etc.) then it would turn off alot of people. We would be chalked up as more crazy gun people. Which alot of us aren't. But each to his own.

OC for ME · Nov 11, 2013

Bashing liberals is not a rules violation as far as I can tell.

eye95 · Nov 11, 2013

OC for ME said:
Bashing liberals is not a rules violation as far as I can tell.

Define your terms!!!

j/k We all know what you mean.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member