Trolling....why open carry?

I think I'll challenge him to cite which USSC case said that we don't have the right to keep and bear arms in response to his challenge that the courts haven't ruled we have that right!

WalkingWolf said:

Here is some food for thought for the OP, 2A purpose is the security of a free state. And how does hiding ones arms accomplish that? How did it work for Jews in Germany?

History is your friend.

Click to expand...

Do you really want to even go there? First when did the individual RTKBA ever actually provide for the security of America. Even during the Revolutionary war it was state owned guns in the hands of what was essentially a Federal army that won our freedom. Even if you argue a sizable early contribution there certainly hasn't been anything close to that since at the very latest the civil war.

As for my fellow Jews in Nazi Germany....Germany swept right over Poland, right over France, halfway across eastern Russia, bombed London, swept across North Africa. It's ridiculous to think that maybe three quarters of a million fighting age Jews with rifles were going to stop the Nazi's on their own doorstep.

Further, there is a difference between "hiding" one's arms and flaunting them. I would argue that the push for concealed carry has done far more to restore our rights than the open carry movement.

J_dazzle23 said:

Like I said, our rights stop becoming rights when the infringe on others rights, which fit nearly every example you provided. It makes me wonder if you thoroughly read my post.

Click to expand...

And I agree with that. These limitation has been put on our rights because the lack of these restrictions are bad public policy. It's simply not ok to yell fire in a crowded theater that isn't on fire, because people may be trampled to death.

Open carry has a potential similar problem. It can cause fear or panic.

J_dazzle23 said:

Secondly, we've all been here on this board a while, and have yet to hear of someone EVER being targeted for open carry. I believe there is an unofficial lump sum of money that had been unclaimed for as long as I can remember for the first member here to have it happen.

Click to expand...

I get some of you are obviously old hat on this topic. Not to sound rude, but you aren't being forced to participate in this thread. I'm glad you are in this thread though.

I'm not looking for a cash payout, but can I safely assume there are some caveats to the offer? As in it may not pertain to certain circumstances, some of which "may not be named".

Putting that aside can you at least define "being targeted"? On one level have someone call a cop, the cop arriving and asking you questions is, in my opinion, "being targeted".

J_dazzle23 said:

Thirdly, if you are ready for your "rights" to be determined by your local law enforcement, you might want to reexamine what you consider freedom.

Click to expand...

Oh, I've examined it much, and Jefferson's flowery language of Locke's ideas aside, I stand with Hobbes and believe there really are no natural rights. Whatever rights we have come in the form of a social contract, in our case the US Constitution and its Amendments.

There is certainly no innate human right to own a gun, you weren't born with one, they didn't even exist for most of human history. The courts could interpret the words "arms" in the 2nd amendment as being a medium sized rock or a stick no longer than your forearm. And that's that. Either the people rise up against it, or accept it, or peacefully petition the government to change it, or risk prison by ignoring it.

Liberty-or-Death said:

Asks us why, but doesn't want to know why. Already has all the answers even if he doesn't know the questions.

Click to expand...

I very much asked why to find out why. I'm open minded, willing to be convinced. But I won't just "Baa" and say I'm convinced just so as to not rub some people wrong. I have concerns, I've come to debate them. I think I've already leaned a lot. Maybe it's no new info for you. But at least I trying to have the conversation without being disruptive. If nothing else you might get some practice for future arguments with hard core antis.

Who cares what SCOTUS has or hasn't said about OC. Those nine got their duty from the Constitution (article 3) within which the Bill of Rights describes our RKBA, which is based upon our natural and God-given right to self defense.

Click to expand...

Putting aside our disagreement on natural or god given rights, the fact is a strict reading of the Constitution may not allow for states to regulate carry in any way shape or form...yet every state I believe has regulated against it in some way at some time. People have gone to prison for the "crime" of unlawfully carrying a firearm. A firearm that they had a legal right to possess, but apparently not to carry.

I have yet to hear of any federal ruling that says states can't have those types of laws. In which case how can it even be considered any type of real "right" if the act lands you convicted of a crime?

And frankly (no offense, or offense), who cares what the OP thinks of OC. I personally don't trust people who always hide their guns.

Click to expand...

That's cool, like I said just having a conversation. Everyone can have an opinion.

JoeSparky said:

I think I'll challenge him to cite which USSC case said that we don't have the right to keep and bear arms in response to his challenge that the courts haven't ruled we have that right!

Click to expand...

That's sort of my point, I don't think there are any cases where SCOTUS said we do, or don't, have the right. Yet in some states people go to prison for it. It's kinda tough to tell them they have the right, at least not with a straight face, while they sit in jail for it.

Kadmos said:

Do you really want to even go there? First when did the individual RTKBA ever actually provide for the security of America. Even during the Revolutionary war it was state owned guns in the hands of what was essentially a Federal army that won our freedom. Even if you argue a sizable early contribution there certainly hasn't been anything close to that since at the very latest the civil war.

As for my fellow Jews in Nazi Germany....Germany swept right over Poland, right over France, halfway across eastern Russia, bombed London, swept across North Africa. It's ridiculous to think that maybe three quarters of a million fighting age Jews with rifles were going to stop the Nazi's on their own doorstep.

Further, there is a difference between "hiding" one's arms and flaunting them. I would argue that the push for concealed carry has done far more to restore our rights than the open carry movement.



And I agree with that. These limitation has been put on our rights because the lack of these restrictions are bad public policy. It's simply not ok to yell fire in a crowded theater that isn't on fire, because people may be trampled to death.

Open carry has a potential similar problem. It can cause fear or panic.



I get some of you are obviously old hat on this topic. Not to sound rude, but you aren't being forced to participate in this thread. I'm glad you are in this thread though.

I'm not looking for a cash payout, but can I safely assume there are some caveats to the offer? As in it may not pertain to certain circumstances, some of which "may not be named".

Putting that aside can you at least define "being targeted"? On one level have someone call a cop, the cop arriving and asking you questions is, in my opinion, "being targeted".



Oh, I've examined it much, and Jefferson's flowery language of Locke's ideas aside, I stand with Hobbes and believe there really are no natural rights. Whatever rights we have come in the form of a social contract, in our case the US Constitution and its Amendments.

There is certainly no innate human right to own a gun, you weren't born with one, they didn't even exist for most of human history. The courts could interpret the words "arms" in the 2nd amendment as being a medium sized rock or a stick no longer than your forearm. And that's that. Either the people rise up against it, or accept it, or peacefully petition the government to change it, or risk prison by ignoring it.




I very much asked why to find out why. I'm open minded, willing to be convinced. But I won't just "Baa" and say I'm convinced just so as to not rub some people wrong. I have concerns, I've come to debate them. I think I've already leaned a lot. Maybe it's no new info for you. But at least I trying to have the conversation without being disruptive. If nothing else you might get some practice for future arguments with hard core antis.



Putting aside our disagreement on natural or god given rights, the fact is a strict reading of the Constitution may not allow for states to regulate carry in any way shape or form...yet every state I believe has regulated against it in some way at some time. People have gone to prison for the "crime" of unlawfully carrying a firearm. A firearm that they had a legal right to possess, but apparently not to carry.

I have yet to hear of any federal ruling that says states can't have those types of laws. In which case how can it even be considered any type of real "right" if the act lands you convicted of a crime?



That's cool, like I said just having a conversation. Everyone can have an opinion.



That's sort of my point, I don't think there are any cases where SCOTUS said we do, or don't, have the right. Yet in some states people go to prison for it. It's kinda tough to tell them they have the right, at least not with a straight face, while they sit in jail for it.

Click to expand...

You don't understand. This is not just a concept, this is how actual law is written.

We have prohibitive government. The government does not tell us what we are "allowed" to do, it prohibits what they say we cannot do.

The scotus doesn't need to rule that I can openly carry a firearm, that is already my right in most states in the union (and soon, all of them).

Secondly, where on earth do you Live?

In utah, montana, idaho, wyoming, and Colorado where I've either lived or carried quite often, open carry happens all the time. I see it probably weekly in bozeman, mt.

So is it OK there because social norms fit what you deem as "acceptible?"

There are 6 million people in utah that have voted in a landslide for "constitutional carry" with only a veto holding it back- TWICE. Thanks to the money made from -guess what- the CC crowd.

You fail to see the points.

A: they don't freak people out, hardly ever. Like years and years between incidents. We know, because WE open carry.

B. Social norms don't dictate my right to choose how I defend my life.

Ps- when the 2a was written, they had privately owned ships with huge cannons, and a very workable early model of what's very similar to a Gatlin gun. Methinks they weren't talking about primitive weapons.

To all - examine the title of this thread carefully. Pay particular attention to the first word.

All other explanations aside, the title tells the story.

From that point on, methinks the lady doth protest too much, would seem an appropriate consolidation.

Grapeshot said:

To all - examine the title of this thread carefully. Pay particular attention to the first word.

All other explanations aside, the title tells the story.

From that point on, methinks the lady doth protest too much, would seem an appropriate consolidation.

Click to expand...

I'm starting to see the light...

J_dazzle23 said:

You don't understand. This is not just a concept, this is how actual law is written.

We have prohibitive government. The government does not tell us what we are "allowed" to do, it prohibits what they say we cannot do.

The scotus doesn't need to rule that I can openly carry a firearm, that is already my right in most states in the union (and soon, all of them).

Click to expand...

I think I do understand just fine. We have a few "rights" spelled out in the constitutional amendments, but most laws tell us what we cannot do. When those things the laws say we cannot do are in conflict with the things the Constitution says we have a right to do, then it often ends up in the courts.

This is how these restrictions on our "rights" came to be. A city puts out some sort of general overly broad law like "disturbing the peace" or "creating a dangerous situation" and when someone is charged with this, and is willing to ague hard enough that it infringes on a right, it works its way through the courts which either affirm the right or restrict it.

For a decent amount of time there were no laws against open carry, it was assumed to be covered by the constitution. But then some places, usually a town or city would make a local ordinance saying "nope, we don't like armed people walking around". Enough locals either agreed with the sentiment or rolled over on it, and pretty soon just about every decent sized town had a "no public display of firearms" law. Soon most states followed suit and just generally made it illegal to walk around with a gun, concealed or not. And because by that time most people weren't walking around with guns anyway, there just wasn't much backlash.

Frankly most of those states were pretty corrupt about it, if you have the money and influence, then there was nearly always some provision to concealed carry. I know someone who had a license (or probably more accurately a special dispensation) to carry concealed a full 20 years before there was an official law enacting a licensing system.

Secondly, where on earth do you Live?

Click to expand...

I'm in St. Louis city, Missouri. In Missouri for a long time there was no state law against open carry, but individual locales could have ordinances against it. You could open carry on one side of the street no problem (legally speaking), cross the street and you could get arrested for it. Out away from the city where the counties are large it might make some sort of sense, but when the counties get smaller towards the city it would be a real hassle.

So because most folks in rural areas basically didn't see the need, and most closer to the city it became too complicated, it's ended up being rather rare here. Obviously the city of St. Louis itself prohibited it. The city is very Democrat.

I think in the last couple years they may have done a statewide affirmation of open carry, but it's still hella rare near in or near the city. I've heard a couple stories about people doing it, but have yet to see it within 50 miles of the city. Maybe seen it a dozen times in my life in Missouri in general, not counting people walking in and out of gun shows or shops.

There was a minor hubbub about a guy who wanted to OC at the Zoo. I think in the end he walking like 50 feet in with an empty holster, turned around and walked out. Obviously a publicity stunt.

I suspect that will begin to change

In utah, montana, idaho, wyoming, and Colorado where I've either lived or carried quite often, open carry happens all the time. I see it probably weekly in bozeman, mt.

Click to expand...

I saw it some in Colorado, and I think AZ and New Mexico. Didn't spend much time in any of those places. The others I haven't been to.

So is it OK there because social norms fit what you deem as "acceptible?"

Click to expand...

Well yes and no, on the local level as long as people aren't freaking out then I don't much see the harm, but often the local level becomes the National stage, and I think the potential is there for OCers to make gun owners look bad.

There are 6 million people in utah that have voted in a landslide for "constitutional carry" with only a veto holding it back- TWICE. Thanks to the money made from -guess what- the CC crowd.

Click to expand...

My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, those weren't general public votes, like on a ballot measure, those were legislative bills passed by the state congress.

The reason that makes a difference is that it doesn't really reflect the will of the people, but what the politicians think will keep them in office and in the good graces of powerful lobbies. I'm not trying to go conspiracy theory or anything. But I do know of at least one case where lawmakers decided to make an open carry law, but a person still ended up arrested, went to trial, and was convicted by a jury. Essentially convicted of doing what would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety. I suppose that a form of jury nullification, or reverse jury nullification. Jury basically said "We see the law says he has a right to do it so long as he isn't causing fear", all witnesses and the police said he wasn't causing fear. But the jury still decided what he was doing a reasonable person would see as causing fear.

So basically the politician got the support of gun owners, gave them a nod saying "I'm protecting your rights", apparently thinking open carry is so uncommon that this won't be an issue. Yet some guy ends up in jail over it. Not much of a "right".

You fail to see the points.

A: they don't freak people out, hardly ever. Like years and years between incidents. We know, because WE open carry.

Click to expand...

I am pleased you haven't had an issues, it may simply be the nature of the area you are in. Or partly in how you carry.

B. Social norms don't dictate my right to choose how I defend my life.

Click to expand...

Except they sort of do, or at least may severely impact your life, health, financial situation, and place of residence. If you are in one of these areas where it's not so acceptable you may spend quite a bit of time having to explain yourself to police, may end up arrested, fined, rack up other charges, potentially get injured or killed, or imprisoned.

Ps- when the 2a was written, they had privately owned ships with huge cannons, and a very workable early model of what's very similar to a Gatlin gun. Methinks they weren't talking about primitive weapons.

Click to expand...

I'm aware. My point was that all these "rights" the Amendments themselves are open to interpretation. While the intent of the founding fathers may be one argument, another might be a simple "what constitutes an Arm?" there is the phrase "armed with a rock" so if a person has a rock are they not armed? So long as we allow them a rock to arm themselves then we are not infringing on their right to bear arms. Just to be clear I'm not saying I think this is either right, just, or what it means. I'm merely saying some future SCOTUS could make the argument, and pass it 5 to 4. Then it would essentially be law.

Grapeshot said:

To all - examine the title of this thread carefully. Pay particular attention to the first word.

All other explanations aside, the title tells the story.

From that point on, methinks the lady doth protest too much, would seem an appropriate consolidation.

Click to expand...

I was trying to say in a semi humorous way that people might not like this thread. I wanted to make clear that I have some views that obviously wouldn't be popular here.

I found out on a different forum that some folks really don't handle opposing views well at all, even one's that may only slightly diverge from theirs. For some folks anything not in lockstep with their views is trolling.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing either. Some folks come to forums like these just to chat with like-minded people, others like to debate things more with people who don't necessarily agree.

I personally love a good spirited debate, but I respect that it's not for everyone, so I wanted to be totally clear right up front. I hope you all understand I did this out of respect.

Just reading the first couple sentences or maybe even just the first word of the title, a person can decide if this is not for them. I tried to make it real obvious how this thread might go for the benefit of such people. For anyone who at all thought "I don't need this in my life, I'd rather just be chill with lighter chat", it should have been obvious real quick that this thread wasn't that.

Kadmos said:

I was trying to say in a semi humorous way that people might not like this thread. I wanted to make clear that I have some views that obviously wouldn't be popular here.

I found out on a different forum that some folks really don't handle opposing views well at all, even one's that may only slightly diverge from theirs. For some folks anything not in lockstep with their views is trolling.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing either. Some folks come to forums like these just to chat with like-minded people, others like to debate things more with people who don't necessarily agree.

I personally love a good spirited debate, but I respect that it's not for everyone, so I wanted to be totally clear right up front. I hope you all understand I did this out of respect.

Just reading the first couple sentences or maybe even just the first word of the title, a person can decide if this is not for them. I tried to make it real obvious how this thread might go for the benefit of such people. For anyone who at all thought "I don't need this in my life, I'd rather just be chill with lighter chat", it should have been obvious real quick that this thread wasn't that.

Click to expand...

Nah - you want the responses tailor made for you, rather than independently searching out the information.

We do not mind going over the basics and pointing people in the right direction, but you keep extending the line.

Were you invited to dinner (think guess who's coming to dinner,) we'd never get to the main course/purpose of this forum. Unfortunately, IMO you have reached the point where you are a distraction.

Kadmos said:

I think I do understand just fine. We have a few "rights" spelled out in the constitutional amendments, but most laws tell us what we cannot do. When those things the laws say we cannot do are in conflict with the things the Constitution says we have a right to do, then it often ends up in the courts.

This is how these restrictions on our "rights" came to be. A city puts out some sort of general overly broad law like "disturbing the peace" or "creating a dangerous situation" and when someone is charged with this, and is willing to ague hard enough that it infringes on a right, it works its way through the courts which either affirm the right or restrict it.

For a decent amount of time there were no laws against open carry, it was assumed to be covered by the constitution. But then some places, usually a town or city would make a local ordinance saying "nope, we don't like armed people walking around". Enough locals either agreed with the sentiment or rolled over on it, and pretty soon just about every decent sized town had a "no public display of firearms" law. Soon most states followed suit and just generally made it illegal to walk around with a gun, concealed or not. And because by that time most people weren't walking around with guns anyway, there just wasn't much backlash.

Frankly most of those states were pretty corrupt about it, if you have the money and influence, then there was nearly always some provision to concealed carry. I know someone who had a license (or probably more accurately a special dispensation) to carry concealed a full 20 years before there was an official law enacting a licensing system.

Click to expand...

The bill of rights/constitution is likely to be the go to before local rules. See gay marriage, Jim crow laws, Terry vs Ohio for references.

I'm in St. Louis city, Missouri. In Missouri for a long time there was no state law against open carry, but individual locales could have ordinances against it. You could open carry on one side of the street no problem (legally speaking), cross the street and you could get arrested for it.

Click to expand...

Does it not sound absurd to base a right around silly rules such as this? Perfect example.

Out away from the city where the counties are large it might make some sort of sense, but when the counties get smaller towards the city it would be a real hassle.

Click to expand...

Doesn't seem to be an issue in SLC utah or billings montana

So because most folks in rural areas basically didn't see the need, and most closer to the city it became too complicated, it's ended up being rather rare here. Obviously the city of St. Louis itself prohibited it. The city is very Democrat.

Click to expand...

Now this is a double standard. I'll reference why later on.

I think in the last couple years they may have done a statewide affirmation of open carry, but it's still hella rare near in or near the city. I've heard a couple stories about people doing it,

Click to expand...

If a tree falls and nobody hears it, did it really fall?

but have yet to see it within 50 miles of the city. Maybe seen it a dozen times in my life in Missouri in general, not counting people walking in and out of gun shows or shops.

There was a minor hubbub about a guy who wanted to OC at the Zoo. I think in the end he walking like 50 feet in with an empty holster, turned around and walked out. Obviously a publicity stunt.

I suspect that will begin to change



I saw it some in Colorado, and I think AZ and New Mexico. Didn't spend much time in any of those places. The others I haven't been to.



Well yes and no, on the local level as long as people aren't freaking out then I don't much see the harm, but often the local level becomes the National stage, and I think the potential is there for OCers to make gun owners look bad.

Click to expand...

Not reality. Open Carry has clearly not had this effect. 7 constitutional carry states and that number is going up. I daresay open carry or *that which shall not be named* is why handgun oc just passed in texas.

My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, those weren't general public votes, like on a ballot measure, those were legislative bills passed by the state congress.

The reason that makes a difference is that it doesn't really reflect the will of the people, but what the politicians think will keep them in office and in the good graces of powerful lobbies. I'm not trying to go conspiracy theory or anything. But I do know of at least one case where lawmakers decided to make an open carry law, but a person still ended up arrested, went to trial, and was convicted by a jury. Essentially convicted of doing what would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety. I suppose that a form of jury nullification, or reverse jury nullification. Jury basically said "We see the law says he has a right to do it so long as he isn't causing fear", all witnesses and the police said he wasn't causing fear. But the jury still decided what he was doing a reasonable person would see as causing fear.

So basically the politician got the support of gun owners, gave them a nod saying "I'm protecting your rights", apparently thinking open carry is so uncommon that this won't be an issue. Yet some guy ends up in jail over it. Not much of a "right".

Click to expand...

Hang on, so st Louis is a "democratic city" that opposed open Carry legislation, but on the flip side you want to assert that constitutional carry wasn't the will of the people in utah?

Double standard there, methinks.

Additionally, utah is quite a pro RKBA state anectdotally. Come for our guns here and the majority will give you muzzle end first.

I am pleased you haven't had an issues, it may simply be the nature of the area you are in. Or partly in how you carry.

Click to expand...

You mean, openly carrying?

Except they sort of do, or at least may severely impact your life, health, financial situation, and place of residence. If you are in one of these areas where it's not so acceptable you may spend quite a bit of time having to explain yourself to police, may end up arrested, fined, rack up other charges, potentially get injured or killed, or imprisoned.

Click to expand...

Hang tight here. So I openly carry a firearm in a secure holster, and I get unlawfully stopped by police, unlawfully arrested, fined, charged, illegally injured or killed, and it's me that is in thr wrong and not those perpetuating force and violence against me for conducting a lawful activity that harms no one?

Certainly this can't be your reasoning.

I'm aware. My point was that all these "rights" the Amendments themselves are open to interpretation.

Click to expand...

By whom?

And if that's your logic....get ready.

Because RKBA is going to keep expanding. Regardless of the vocal few with lots of money to wave around.

While the intent of the founding fathers may be one argument, another might be a simple "what constitutes an Arm?" there is the phrase "armed with a rock" so if a person has a rock are they not armed? So long as we allow them a rock to arm themselves then we are not infringing on their right to bear arms. Just to be clear I'm not saying I think this is either right, just, or what it means. I'm merely saying some future SCOTUS could make the argument, and pass it 5 to 4. Then it would essentially be law.

Click to expand...

I could eventually fly and poop rainbows riding my unicorn in the clouds, too.

The point is here is that the likely hood of that is insanely rare, and would go 100% against many supreme court rulings, specifically what the modern interpretation of the 2a is.

For example, it pertains to individuals, not those in a militia. It also pertains to the individual, not just their place of residence.

Precidence is already there with the BOR and scotus on top of that.

Kadmos said:

The title is a bit of a joke, with maybe a bit of a truth.
sniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip

Click to expand...

I would like to say this. Everyday I leave my house I see people do things I would rather they not. I don't try to get them to change nor am I currently accepting any suggestions to change my own behavior.

I want to carry a big ol full size .45 that feels good in my hand and holds a lot of bullets. I also want to carry OWB with a level non existent retention leather holster so I can access the use of those bullets as quickly as possible if I need to. And I want it to be as comfortable as possible. Usually that means OC. Although if it's more comfortable to have a coat on it may be CC or some mix of the two as I move around.

If it bothers you I truly don't care. Neither do I expect you to care if I am bothered by what you wear, what you look like, and what or who you do.

Kadmos said:

That's sort of my point, I don't think there are any cases where SCOTUS said we do, or don't, have the right. Yet in some states people go to prison for it. It's kinda tough to tell them they have the right, at least not with a straight face, while they sit in jail for it.

Click to expand...

Do you not see what happened here? If there is no law saying you can't do something, YOU CAN! How can you not "believe" in natural law?

Grapeshot said:

To all - examine the title of this thread carefully. Pay particular attention to the first word.

All other explanations aside, the title tells the story.

From that point on, methinks the lady doth protest too much, would seem an appropriate consolidation.

Click to expand...

^This^

Kadmos said:

Sorry, I saw I missed yours before. I hope I got to most of it in this last one, if not let me know, I promise to catch up at some point in the near future. I got better responses than I thought I might, plus more of them, plus I'm rambling a lot

Click to expand...

Do I really, really have to tell you that you not only did not "get most of it in this last one" but that you seem to purposely seem to be avoiding the questions posed to you?

They are straight questions. Your responses should be straight - no background, no filler, no tales of you and mom and dad and the hobby farm.

You say you used the term "trolling" numerously as a way to draw attention to your post. I say you are afraid to give a straight answer to a straight question. Either you are doing that because you are in fact trolling or because you are purposely out to hurt my widdle feewings.

stay safe.

People who are ok with CC but not OC bother me a little. IMHO it's a complete submission to illogical perceptions.

It reminds me of something my mother told me once when I was young that bothered me.
She said "I don't like restaurants where you can see people preparing your food. If I think about it I know someone is in there, probably without gloves on, handling the food I am about to eat. But if I don't see it I can pretend it's not happening."
Take a look at the number CC licenses issued in your state and imagine aaaaall the people around you probably CCing right now. Hurry to stand between them and your children!

Barf....History wrong.....it wasn't the army and state weapons who won the revolution...Social contract (statist socialistic viewpoint contrary to nature)....Rights somehow come from the top down yet there would be no top if it wasn't for the individual to form the social group Wait didn't a Polish Ghetto successfully hold off Nazi's with small arms for quite some time.....imagine if all the rest of the populations refused to give up theirs.Disturbing connection between OC and yelling fire in a theater, the person calling the cops or going after the OC is the person more comparable to the fire shouter.All his comments are easily dissembled.........yet he keeps trolling, trolling, trolling..........trolling , trolling.....

twoskinsonemanns said:

I would like to say this. Everyday I leave my house I see people do things I would rather they not. I don't try to get them to change nor am I currently accepting any suggestions to change my own behavior.

I want to carry a big ol full size .45 that feels good in my hand and holds a lot of bullets. I also want to carry OWB with a level non existent retention leather holster so I can access the use of those bullets as quickly as possible if I need to. And I want it to be as comfortable as possible. Usually that means OC. Although if it's more comfortable to have a coat on it may be CC or some mix of the two as I move around.

If it bothers you I truly don't care. Neither do I expect you to care if I am bothered by what you wear, what you look like, and what or who you do.

Click to expand...

I'd like you to say that again, so there you go!
Well said sir.

Kadmos said:

... But the reality is that it's easy to find instances were a person with a properly holstered hand gun led to people calling 911, the police have to check it out, and occasionally it becomes "an incident" in some form or another. ...

Click to expand...

It only becomes a incident because the police make it a incident. As such, some cops troll OCers, if they can get away with it, just as you are trolling this site.

Other CC only fellas have come and gone...begone...troll.

When all is said and done there is but one thing left to do - preserve space.

Locked it.