Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 65

Thread: Open carry interactions with officers

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1

    Open carry interactions with officers

    Hello all! First post, and first day reading about the laws around open carry. I have hit most of the stickies and have seen some good info. I listened to several audio recordings of interactions and have seen several videos and came away from most of them with a few simple questions around interactions with police officers confronting those who open carry.

    Let me first start off by saying that while I own several guns and am an advocate for our right to bear arms, I also am a realist and pretty much agree that things like fully automatic weapons being completely unnecessary for day to day protection. So I guess what I am saying, is I am not a completely staunch any-gun anywhere kind of person, but I very much appreciate and expect to be able to take a semi automatic handgun of any kind with me pretty much anywhere whenever I want (which, we all know we can't do). Anyway, to the question...


    I hear so many of these audio recordings going something like this:

    Police officer: What is your name
    MWAG: [Says nothing]
    -Repeat above several times
    Police officer: Law abiding citizens are allowed to have guns, I need to verify you are a law abiding citizen tell me your name
    MWAG: [Says nothing]
    Police officer: Do you understand that law abiding citizens are allowed to possess a firearm?
    MWAG: Hugh?, Okay
    Police officer: Repeats, and adds that he doesn't know who the MWAG is


    I think you get the gist.

    Now, I get that your best course of action is to remain silent, less to defend against etc. But at the end of the day, if it is our right as law abiding citizens to carry a firearm, and I am a law abiding citizen, why should I not just cooperate and provide my name, so they can verify that I am a law abiding citizen and go on with my life, instead of making the cops mad about something that's completely avoidable? Now, if I was not a law abiding citizen, then hell ya, I would keep my mouth shut, but the fact here is that I am , and none of the MWAG's in the recordings were criminals either.

    I guess I get it at the end of the day, its all about our "rights" and if we give an inch, they take a mile type thing, but it is a huge hassle, makes a scene and I am sure whoever I am with at the time if something like that went down wouldn't exactly appreciate the scenario either.

    So my question is, who here has been stopped, gone the route where they are compliant and also the route of "saying nothing" and which turned out better.... I imagine the compliant route is less stressful for everyone.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by ekoesling; 04-18-2014 at 09:19 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by ekoesling View Post
    Hello all! First post, and first day reading about the laws around open carry. <snip>

    So my question is, who here has been stopped, gone the route where they are compliant and also the route of "saying nothing" and which turned out better.... I imagine the compliant route is less stressful for everyone.

    Thoughts?
    A reasonable and rational citizen, who goes about visibly armed with a properly holstered handgun, bears a responsibility to be aware of the laws that affect OC (or that there are no laws for OC), and CC for that matter. Only a cop can make a non-event a event if that citizen is law abiding.

    A non-confrontational approach to any cop interactions, where your OC'd handgun is likely the only reason for the interaction, is the first key to not being subject to "the ride." Recording the interaction is vital to "beating the rap." LACs are usually not required to interact with a cop if they are not mandated to do so under the laws of their state. Know this/these laws too.

    I have had two interaction, several years ago, both were short, less than one minute in one, and less than five minutes in the other. On both occasions I supplied only the information required under the law. I did not speak one word in the first, and "educated" in the second.

    The second interaction was a cop quizzing/lecturing me about OC in my front yard (he was driving by and saw me OC while doing yard work). "No law against that" was my only substantive response after the "no" to a ID request. The cop made a good choice and went about his business elsewhere.

    Every interaction is unique and your approach should be predicated on what you perceive as the cop's attitude. The "side of the road' is not the place to try a (your) court case. It is my experience that the vast majority of cops are well trained and professional. They'll know a crime is in progress, or a criminal (alleged) is in their midst, act accordingly and within the confines of the law. These cops rarely stop you unless they have a department policy that compels them to do that which they would not ordinarily do if they were to casually see a armed citizen.

    Welcome to OCDO.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Welcome to OCDO ekoesling .

    Moved this to the Wisconsin sub-forum because laws and circumstances vary significently from state to state.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Cutting the new poster some slack .... I say welcome to the forum.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    First, why should we not be able to own full autos? Do you know what the 2A is?
    Second, if police say they need to verify you are a law abiding citizen, ask them what crime you've committed, in the process of committing, or about to commit. If he can't say, start to walk away. However, if he detains you further, keep your mouth shut.

    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    "But how do I know you're a law abiding citizen?" is NOT the same thing as "I can reasonably suspect you are violating XXX criminal code."

    Just because a woman has a vagina doesn't mean it's reasonable to suspect she is a prostitute nor that a man with a penis is necessarily a rapist.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    First, why should we not be able to own full autos? Do you know what the 2A is?
    Second, if police say they need to verify you are a law abiding citizen, ask them what crime you've committed, in the process of committing, or about to commit. If he can't say, start to walk away. However, if he detains you further, keep your mouth shut.

    Velkomen to the blog. I agree with Protias. During the revolutionary war, we were not armed with bows and arrows, but guns that matched British guns most of the time.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    popple butte
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    First, why should we not be able to own full autos? Do you know what the 2A is?
    Second, if police say they need to verify you are a law abiding citizen, ask them what crime you've committed, in the process of committing, or about to commit. If he can't say, start to walk away. However, if he detains you further, keep your mouth shut.

    You probably should read the post again. The new poster never said yay or nay about a person's RIGHT to own a fully automatic weapon.

    As for the rest of your post's advice were they your actions at the chinese restaurant x amount of years ago?

  9. #9
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by ekoesling View Post
    SNIP...Let me first start off by saying that while I own several guns and am an advocate for our right to bear arms, I also am a realist and pretty much agree that things like fully automatic weapons being completely unnecessary for day to day protection. So I guess what I am saying, is I am not a completely staunch any-gun anywhere kind of person, but I very much appreciate and expect to be able to take a semi automatic handgun of any kind with me pretty much anywhere whenever I want (which, we all know we can't do).
    Welcome to OCDO ekoesling. I understand that statist propaganda can rub off on even the most Freedom-loving individuals from all the exposure.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	The-Original-Assault-Rifle....jpg 
Views:	135 
Size:	58.0 KB 
ID:	11509
    I'd counter the "need" argument with "you don't NEED to express your opinion on "social media" because it is really unnecessary to expressing yourself when you can already interact face-to-face with neighbors, just like you don't NEED a car that goes faster than 65 MPH since the first cars usually topped out at around 20 MPH and worked out fine, and you don't NEED a computer, since technically everything was once done using paper and pen." See what that sounds like?

    Sorry if I come off as a bit aggressive; I'm not trying to be.
    Quote Originally Posted by ekoesling View Post
    Now, I get that your best course of action is to remain silent, less to defend against etc. But at the end of the day, if it is our right as law abiding citizens to carry a firearm, and I am a law abiding citizen, why should I not just cooperate and provide my name, so they can verify that I am a law abiding citizen and go on with my life, instead of making the cops mad about something that's completely avoidable? Now, if I was not a law abiding citizen, then hell ya, I would keep my mouth shut, but the fact here is that I am , and none of the MWAG's in the recordings were criminals either.

    I guess I get it at the end of the day, its all about our "rights" and if we give an inch, they take a mile type thing, but it is a huge hassle, makes a scene and I am sure whoever I am with at the time if something like that went down wouldn't exactly appreciate the scenario either.
    I bolded the part that shows you've been indoctrinated with the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" mentality, also known as "guilty until proven innocent".

    Not good. The way you try to defend it is also indicative of a spread of this statist propaganda within your being.
    I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on Tv, but I had similar exposure to statist propaganda and similar symptoms some years back. I'd recommend a constant purging of the toxic statist propaganda elements from your body and your surroundings, trying to limit your exposure via touch, sight, or airwaves.
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 04-18-2014 at 06:09 PM.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  10. #10
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by ekoesling View Post
    SNIP...Let me first start off by saying that while I own several guns and am an advocate for our right to bear arms, I also am a realist and pretty much agree that things like fully automatic weapons being completely unnecessary for day to day protection. So I guess what I am saying, is I am not a completely staunch any-gun anywhere kind of person, but I very much appreciate and expect to be able to take a semi automatic handgun of any kind with me pretty much anywhere whenever I want (which, we all know we can't do).
    Quote Originally Posted by Franky View Post
    You probably should read the post again. The new poster never said yay or nay about a person's RIGHT to own a fully automatic weapon.
    Read again. He implies that since he deems them "unnecessary for day to day protection" that they should not be carried around. What would be wrong with me wanting to carry around a rifle capable of select fire up to, and including, "full auto"?
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  11. #11
    Regular Member DaveT319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    Welcome to OCDO ekoesling. I understand that statist propaganda can rub off on even the most Freedom-loving individuals from all the exposure.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	The-Original-Assault-Rifle....jpg 
Views:	135 
Size:	58.0 KB 
ID:	11509
    He didn't say the "need" to own; just the "need" to carry one during your daily activities. And to me, it's a good point: when confronted with a criminal, just how useful IS a rifle? Not very. Sure, it might be a hell of a deterrent, but it's not really practical.

    Now, in defense of our liberties against government oppression: of course they are useful. As has been pointed out, having comparable arms to what the government would use against us will help keep us from being overrun.

    To the OP: the fact is that you don't HAVE to identify yourself to an officer if you are not committing a crime. However, like you, I would probably be inclined to ID just because a little - and I do mean a little - cooperation would probably go a long way toward the encounter being cordial rather than confrontational. It comes down to we all have a choice on how we want to handle the situation. I myself would prefer to be a good ambassador for the cause than to try to show a cop how much smarter I am than he is. I think in the long run it'll make things easier not only for me, but also for the next open carrier that officer encounters.

    BTW, have you EVER seen/heard of a bad guy open carrying? No, they hide their weapons. So the cops should already reasonably suspect that we are good law-abiding citizens. But I don't think being stubborn and confrontational is going to help reinforce that.
    Last edited by DaveT319; 04-18-2014 at 06:31 PM.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT319 View Post
    He didn't say the "need" to own; just the "need" to carry one during your daily activities. And to me, it's a good point: when confronted with a criminal, just how useful IS a rifle? Not very. Sure, it might be a hell of a deterrent, but it's not really practical.

    Now, in defense of our liberties against government oppression: of course they are useful. As has been pointed out, having comparable arms to what the government would use against us will help keep us from being overrun.

    To the OP: the fact is that you don't HAVE to identify yourself to an officer if you are not committing a crime. However, like you, I would probably be inclined to ID just because a little - and I do mean a little - cooperation would probably go a long way toward the encounter being cordial rather than confrontational. It comes down to we all have a choice on how we want to handle the situation. I myself would prefer to be a good ambassador for the cause than to try to show a cop how much smarter I am than he is. I think in the long run it'll make things easier not only for me, but also for the next open carrier that officer encounters.

    BTW, have you EVER seen/heard of a bad guy open carrying? No, they hide their weapons. So the cops should already reasonably suspect that we are good law-abiding citizens. But I don't think being stubborn and confrontational is going to help reinforce that.
    No need for a rifle? Really? I guess those in that Aurora, CO theater wouldn't have wanted a rifle...
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  13. #13
    Regular Member DaveT319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    283
    You think a rifle would have been superior to a handgun in that instance?

  14. #14
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by ekoesling
    ... at the end of the day, if it is our right as law abiding citizens to carry a firearm, and I am a law abiding citizen, why should I not just cooperate and provide my name, so they can verify that I am a law abiding citizen and go on with my life, instead of making the cops mad about something that's completely avoidable?
    It is not my job, nor an obligation upon me, to make the officer's life easier.
    I do not have to prove I am not breaking a law.
    It is the officer's job to prove that I am doing something illegal.

    I am protected by the Constitution against being required to provide any evidence which could be used against me... and some officers are pretty good about twisting completely legal and innocent actions or statements. (Heck, some make things up out of whole cloth. There's even a word for the most extreme form: testilying. I've had that used against me.)

    If I am doing nothing illegal, then it's the officer's fault the interaction happened, and if they get mad about someone exercising their civil rights, they need to re-read the oath they took, esp. the part about upholding the laws (and sometimes there's something about defending the Constitution).

    See Delaware v. Prouse, 1979
    "random traffic stops conducted for the purpose of checking driver licenses violate the Fourth Amendment"
    http://www.caselaw4cops.net/cases_ne..._v_prouse.html

    Since it's illegal to stop someone doing something which requires a license just to check to see if they have a valid license, it's also illegal to stop someone doing something which does not require a license to check to see if they have permission to do it.

    it is a huge hassle, makes a scene and I am sure whoever I am with at the time if something like that went down wouldn't exactly appreciate the scenario either.
    You're not the one making a scene. You were peacefully and lawfully going about your day. The officer caused the problem, and should be the one embarrassed (including by his forgetting established case law such as Delaware v. Prouse).

    Now, if one were carrying openly in a place where only licensees are allowed to possess a usable firearm (the most common example in WI being in the "gun-free" school zone), the officer would have reasonable suspicion that you were committing a crime, and a defense to that is having a carry license, so you would have to show your ccl & DL.

    I imagine the compliant route is less stressful for everyone.
    No, only less stressful for the officer.
    You'll still end up arrested, booked, charged, groped, have your property stolen, just the same as if you kept your mouth shut except to ask why you were being detained, or ask for your lawyer.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    As soon as you answer a cop's questions you are in trouble.

    Cop: You did not kill that guy?
    U: Correct.
    Cop: Bob, get the car up this guy just answered Yes to my question about killing the guy.
    U (to self): freaking hey, I should have not said anything

  16. #16
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Here's another useful case.
    Stufflebeam v. Harris (8th Cir. 2008)
    The Court held: Police could not arrest a passenger in a vehicle simply because he did not comply with the officer and show identification.
    The officer needs reasonable suspicion that the passenger is engaged in criminal conduct before compelling him to show identification.

    The Court stated, "...arresting Stufflebeam, a passenger not suspected of criminal activity, because he adamantly refused to comply with an unlawful demand that he identify himself. No reasonable police officer could believe he had probable cause to arrest this stubborn and irritating, but law abiding citizen."

    http://www.caselaw4cops.net/cases_ne...8cir_2008.html

  17. #17
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT319 View Post
    You think a rifle would have been superior to a handgun in that instance?
    Hell Yes!
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  18. #18
    Regular Member DaveT319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    283
    Tell me, where would they have kept their rifles while seated? A rifle is cumbersome in daily, non-military life. And in a dark theater it wouldn't be seen to have a deterrent effect.

    While anyone there would have taken a rifle over nothing in that instance, I don't think you can really tell me that it would have been BETTER than a handgun.

    Now, I would never tell someone that they couldn't carry a rifle if they wanted. But I think they are wholly impractical for when you're out in public.

  19. #19
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT319 View Post
    Tell me, where would they have kept their rifles while seated? A rifle is cumbersome in daily, non-military life. And in a dark theater it wouldn't be seen to have a deterrent effect.

    While anyone there would have taken a rifle over nothing in that instance, I don't think you can really tell me that it would have been BETTER than a handgun.

    Now, I would never tell someone that they couldn't carry a rifle if they wanted. But I think they are wholly impractical for when you're out in public.
    You asked if a rifle would have been superior, I doubt there is many here that would believe otherwise. You did not ask if a handgun is more convenient to carry. The 2A says nothing about practical or impractical, those are arguments antis make.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  20. #20
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    A Ferrari is "impractical" for a go-to-market car, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be sold, driven, nor coveted.

    I care not what a man carries for protection, so long as he carries. And as Benjamen Franklin said "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

    I'll bet the police that responded to the theater shooting carried an AR or three. Any takers?
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 04-18-2014 at 09:32 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT319 View Post
    Tell me, where would they have kept their rifles while seated? A rifle is cumbersome in daily, non-military life. And in a dark theater it wouldn't be seen to have a deterrent effect.

    While anyone there would have taken a rifle over nothing in that instance, I don't think you can really tell me that it would have been BETTER than a handgun.

    Now, I would never tell someone that they couldn't carry a rifle if they wanted. But I think they are wholly impractical for when you're out in public.
    Here's the hierarchy of weapons for self-defense, as I see it:

    1) No event ("The supreme art of War is to subdue the enemy without fighting" - Sun Tzu, The Art of War)
    2) An entire legion of avenging angels (NOTE: available only to God's favorite Son {just a little humor, I know He loves us all})
    3) An entire army fully outfitted with battle gear

    Besides #1, only the following are available to use mere citizens:
    4) All your buddies, fully armed, if only with semi-autos
    5) Your semi-auto RIFLE
    6) Your primary PISTOL
    7) Your secondary, tertiary, quaternary..... pistol
    8) Your knife
    9) Your bare limbs
    10) Cowering in fear and begging to be let go (choice preference for hoplophobes and so-called "pacifists" who wish to disarm everyone because of their repressed urges and insecurities).
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 04-19-2014 at 04:02 AM. Reason: Emoticons
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  22. #22
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT319 View Post
    Tell me, where would they have kept their rifles while seated? A rifle is cumbersome in daily, non-military life.SNIP.... I think they are wholly impractical for when you're out in public.
    The same argument could be made for our Rights, Freedoms and Liberties.

    I would say that in general, defending one's Freedoms and Liberties can be more than a little cumbersome, and standing up for one's Rights can be impractical given one's daily routine.
    But I'll be damned if our Rights aren't worth the tense, awkward moments and every inconvenience that comes along with their defense. But I'm really not the one to ask, seeing as I haven't ever had to risk or lose my life in their defense.
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 04-19-2014 at 04:10 AM. Reason: Bolding, emoticon
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  23. #23
    Regular Member DaveT319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    The same argument could be made for our Rights, Freedoms and Liberties.
    I wish you guys would stop using that straw man. I said very clearly that I would never tell tell someone that they couldn't carry one if they wanted. I just think a rifle is impractical as a defensive weapon while out in public doing daily activity.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT319 View Post
    I wish you guys would stop using that straw man. I said very clearly that I would never tell tell someone that they couldn't carry one if they wanted. I just think a rifle is impractical as a defensive weapon while out in public doing daily activity.
    Not attacking you, or attacking you by a strawmen proxy. I apologize if it came off that way. That's the reason I sometimes overuse smileys, so that people know I'm not trying to be confrontational.

    I think we're just trying to point out the double-standard that has rubbed off on you from all the statist propaganda that citizens are bombarded with. I can say that for myself, at least. Not too long ago, Citizen (or was it WalkingWolf?) pointed out something I posted that REALLY stopped me and got me thinking. I'd been tainted by the Dark Side, and am glad he pointed it out so I could purge it from my system.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  25. #25
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth
    --Moderator edited/deleted quote--
    Another rare-ish gem from you. I know it felt weird when I first started carrying my 1911 (bumping things, poking, etc.), but now it is Second () nature. I've no doubt the same carries over to rifles, and we would probably find it to be the case should we ask people who are denied the OC of their sidearm.

    OT: Hope the OP wasn't discouraged by my reply or the others.
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 04-19-2014 at 04:30 PM. Reason: Removed LGOC references
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •