-
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.
-
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.
Another Open Carry Texas success story ruins it for Washingtonians.....
- Thread starter EMNofSeattle
- Start date
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Ahh, so you can't argue the facts.
What dept do you work for, I'll try to find your policy.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
what is "Thug language" is someone a thug only because of vernacular used?
graceless maybe, I'll concede that, but not inept in fact you've spent more posts harping on the example then the point made.
which is that, when someone "respectfully requests" regarding their private property, they're making a rule that's expected to be followed. which they have the right to do as proprietors.
but some people on this forum, apparently, do not seriously regard property rights because of the outer politness of the statement.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
Cop carry.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
Yes they are victims of tyranny. Obviously, the only reason they are carrying long guns is because that is the only option affair fed them by a tyrannical government. It matters not if you think it unwise to do something especially when it comes to exercising a right. If it's ok to suppress one right then it's ok to suppress all of them.
And in case you didn't know the constitution wasn't written to keep government from violating our rights. It was to show the government how to protect our rights and secure them.
Read the Declaration of Independence and it will tell you exactly why they created this government. A private entity doesn't have the right to violate any persons right unless there is a law being broken.
Yes the government has strayed VERY far from the initial purpose it was created for.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
seems to me to be an argument for carry tailored to a certain audience. no mention of laws was even in it. if you live in most states in the country you can do whatever the author of the article said as well.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
What Target posted is not an actual gun ban. They are trying to play both sides.
When they issue a real policy, then there's something to talk about. Not that this thread hasn't been entertaining, it's just that the original premise is faulty (but we shalln't let that stand in the way of a good row).
Last edited:
ATM
Campaign Veteran
If you had a garage sale with a request in the local paper to not bring guns (which I may or may not have even seen), I certainly might stop in while carrying. You could ask me to go lock my gun in my car, but I would decline your request. You could ask me to leave and I would leave.
Or... you might decide to let me stay in the hopes I might decide to purchase some of your stuff.
Let's at least compare apples to apples.
The request was designed to placate the vocal whiners, not to actually stop anything. If they wanted to stop something they'd have created a new policy.
There are countless requests I would refuse to abide. Many requests are absurd.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Crap and they admit this:
www.officer.com/article/11221281/off-duty-carry-yes-or-noofficer.com said:
Militarized police attitude, even in an article about off duty carry.
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Who's talking about suppressing another's rights? no one! what legislation have I advocated for on this thread? doing exactly what you propose! eliminating the OC restrictions on handguns!
It's a red herring, the whole purpose here is to say I think they can get OC enacted through better means that don't cause so much trouble. that's called criticism, it has nothing to do with what they have a right to do, I agree you should have the right to carry a rifle in public, not every time is most appropriate for it.
of course by the time they finally get OC in TX it will probably be with a license and wearing at least a level II holster like the law they proposed last year........ and that wouldn't be much better.
OC for ME
Regular Member
You didn't get it, did you?
If cops find it critical, and not all do it seems, to be armed at all times, what does it matter the manner of carry or firearm type? This thread is about the firearm type and the manner of carry. Though, I don't know if those dudes actually carry full time with rifles across their chests. "Photo carry" maybe.
Anyway, it is the same old argument...no OC, ever! Do as i say or you will be held to account. The state will be used, willingly, gladly at times, to enforce the "preferred" method to exercise our right...the only approved method.
OCT has officially distanced themselves from the OC of long guns. They caved to the media pressure, no big deal, their choice.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
http://www.sandyhookhoax.net/sandy-...annel-malloy-admits-he-was-warned-in-advance/
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...idnt-happen-was-hoax-by-obama-administration/
http://tomohalloran.com/2013/01/13/the-fraud-of-the-sandy-hook-shooting-fake-parents-grieving/
Sandy Hook is/was a hoax, a staged hoax with actors and everything.
http://sandyhookhoax.blogspot.com/2013/01/sandyhookNOAR15.html
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
I think everyone should be armed as many times and places as practical.....
in a perfect world firearm type and manner would be far less important then it is currently.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
The issue is not whether you've advocated any legislation. The issue is that you are blaming those merely exercising their rights in the only way they can for the decision that was not theirs to make. You simply don't see that you are blaming the victim in this new policy. That are the ones being harassed for lawful action. Both MDA and many gun owners are harassing them for doing nothing wrong.
You never did answer the question of whether or not it is the fault of one exercising their right if tyrannical legislation gets passed.
And obviously target is suppressing the rights of open carriers. It's not only governments that can suppress one's rights.
I just think gun owners need to put the blame where it belongs. On those who made the decisions, and those who made a fuss and brought it to light that people were not harming anyone.
OC for ME
Regular Member
True, but perfect is not my goal, simply following the law is, as in "shall not be infringed."
Dumping on dudes who "don't do it", carry that is, the right way. This dumping is usually manifest as CC vs. OC. Cops are typically big CC fanatics. Here also the dumping is manifest...don't OC long guns = don't OC at all. CC and work to get OC of a handgun.
One thing is certain, Demanding Mad Moms are anti-2A.
Elm Creek Smith
Regular Member
Your house isn't a public place, is it? If it is, what kind of an establishment are you running in your house?
They don't want us there, they should post a "gunbuster" sign (a 30.06 sign in Texas). If they don't, they can "respectfully request" all they want. I shall "respectfully deny" their request. When Oklahoma first passed concealed carry, our local WalMart posted "gunbuster" signs. That lasted about a week or two before they came down without fanfare. If Target posts those signs, they'll be closing stores before fall.
Elm Creek Smith
Regular Member
Starbucks didn't rescind their "state law policy." Their CEO issued a weasel-worded letter "asking" people not to carry their guns into their stores. Haven't seen a "gunbuster" sign at SBs. When Target starts posting "gunbuster" signs in Oklahoma, that's when they'll start closing stores here. CVS had "gunbuster" signs up for about a week after Oklahoma okayed open carry. They came down very quickly.
Elm Creek Smith
Regular Member
Not without a "gunbuster" sign.
acmariner99
Regular Member
For me, LGOC is all about perception. Can it be done safely? Sure. Are there times I think it would be appropriate? Absolutely.
Those of us who have OCed handguns with the goal of helping normalize the presence of firearms in public have seen a multitude of successes, until the LGOC crowd came along. Store after store has asked us not to carry. Why? Because carrying a rifle gives the perception to the general public unfamiliar with firearms that the environment is unsafe. What we think and what we know is irrelevant, it is how the business and the public perceive us. The perception is a lot different when carrying a holstered handgun. Nearly every encounter I have had has been positive - I highly doubt the reaction would be the same if I carried my AR-15 into my local Safeway.
That said will I stop people from LGOC? No! Will I advocate for banning LGOC? No! But I will withdraw from the area if I see somebody OCing a rifle as I do not want to be associated with that activity. If this continues, do not be surprised if even more stores (which have every right to ban us) ask us to stop carrying.
Those of us who have OCed handguns with the goal of helping normalize the presence of firearms in public have seen a multitude of successes, until the LGOC crowd came along. Store after store has asked us not to carry. Why? Because carrying a rifle gives the perception to the general public unfamiliar with firearms that the environment is unsafe. What we think and what we know is irrelevant, it is how the business and the public perceive us. The perception is a lot different when carrying a holstered handgun. Nearly every encounter I have had has been positive - I highly doubt the reaction would be the same if I carried my AR-15 into my local Safeway.
That said will I stop people from LGOC? No! Will I advocate for banning LGOC? No! But I will withdraw from the area if I see somebody OCing a rifle as I do not want to be associated with that activity. If this continues, do not be surprised if even more stores (which have every right to ban us) ask us to stop carrying.