Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
Neck 12" Sleeve 3" Length short? 'Fitted T-shirt'? TMI
AWDstylez wrote:
Neck 12" Sleeve 3" Length short? 'Fitted T-shirt'? TMI
-
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.
The most anti-OC'ing "pro gun" people
- Thread starter hsmith
- Start date
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
For those of you in Wisconsin that wear nothing but flannel button ups, a "fitted T-shirt" is simply a tight fitting T, as opposed tonormal, baggy fitting T that would concealeasily. Get out a little more maybe?
Doug Huffman wrote:
For those of you in Wisconsin that wear nothing but flannel button ups, a "fitted T-shirt" is simply a tight fitting T, as opposed tonormal, baggy fitting T that would concealeasily. Get out a little more maybe?
mkl
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
AWD, how come every thread you are involved in has you using personal insults left and right and very little substance? I guess the only good thing is, that it seems like most people here ignore your personal attacks and continue on the subject at hand....
Anyway, As far as I have noticed , people who don't like OC tend to be people who are just defensive about all of their positions. They will argue that their way is right about anything, and carry option is just one of them. Mac vs PC, Ford vs Chevy, Glock vs HK. They typically are not the most knowledgeable ones about any of the topics they argue about, they only argue because they feel like they need to defend their positions so that people who know a little bit less than them will look up to them. I am not saying that everyone who argues about such topics is that way of course, some people have preferences of things based on actual facts, usage, etc. However, if I meet a fellow gun owner and they have a strong anti-oc position, it always seems to be only a matter of time until they reveal some other weird positions on something else they are less knowledgeable about.
I chalk it up to insecurity and their need to feel like all of their preferences are "correct".
AWDstylez wrote:
AWD, how come every thread you are involved in has you using personal insults left and right and very little substance? I guess the only good thing is, that it seems like most people here ignore your personal attacks and continue on the subject at hand....
Anyway, As far as I have noticed , people who don't like OC tend to be people who are just defensive about all of their positions. They will argue that their way is right about anything, and carry option is just one of them. Mac vs PC, Ford vs Chevy, Glock vs HK. They typically are not the most knowledgeable ones about any of the topics they argue about, they only argue because they feel like they need to defend their positions so that people who know a little bit less than them will look up to them. I am not saying that everyone who argues about such topics is that way of course, some people have preferences of things based on actual facts, usage, etc. However, if I meet a fellow gun owner and they have a strong anti-oc position, it always seems to be only a matter of time until they reveal some other weird positions on something else they are less knowledgeable about.
I chalk it up to insecurity and their need to feel like all of their preferences are "correct".
SIGguy229
Regular Member
imported post
+1 MKL.....emphasis on the word feel
+1 MKL.....emphasis on the word feel
OmSigDAVID
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
Can u point me toward that thread ? Sounds interesting.
How do u define a " retention holster " ?
David
AWDstylez wrote:
Can u point me toward that thread ? Sounds interesting.
How do u define a " retention holster " ?
David
SIGguy229
Regular Member
imported post
I recommend you utilize the search function as there are many threads on "retention holsters". I use a Blackhawk SERPA when I OC.
I recommend you utilize the search function as there are many threads on "retention holsters". I use a Blackhawk SERPA when I OC.
Aran
Banned
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
Chode.
AWDstylez wrote:
It's amazing somebody hasn't already taken you out of the gene pool already.
Chode.
compmanio365
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
Yup, pretty much confirms it. I'd ask that any moderator looking at this thread see this as proof that this individual is a troll and deserves to be banned from these forums. But somehow, I doubt that will happen, because moderation around here is nonexistent.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
Ahh your anti open carry bias rises again. Why do you even watch this site?
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Damn it dave! Yes yes, rain can be a vaild argument
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
And you want to talk of a "Strawman" - please, your "sword" argument has to be the definition of a fallacy.
AWDstylez wrote:
Please stay out of my thread, you cannot control yourself and act appropriate towards others.
And you want to talk of a "Strawman" - please, your "sword" argument has to be the definition of a fallacy.
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
mkl wrote:
mkl wrote:
Good call on both paragraphs.
AnaxImperator
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
Not wearing a handgun openly becauseit's not considered sociallyacceptable by some people and the media is in no way helpingour cause. OC used to be much more commonplace, and therefore was more socially acceptable because of it's commonality. But asconcealed-carry became possible & legal(though controlled by permit) OC became less common, the anti-gun crowd & the media began to insinuate that it's not socially acceptable, that it's the last vestige of a bygone era, and that those who do OC are backcountry hicks clinging to an outdated way of life (and their guns/bible).
Last I checked, being oppressed by others due to their opinions is not supported or allowable by the Constitution. However, should something like OC become so uncommon that it wouldn't be missed if made illegal, makes it quite possible that agenda-driven lawmakers will take the opportunity to truly outlaw OC. That's the true danger to our cause, and not making it look bad in public. Of course if the general public simply never sees someone OC'ing, they're going to be worried or even scared should an OC'er show up in a public place, even if it's totally legal.
If someone OC'ing with a drop-thigh holster, 7 extra mags, camo/"tactical" clothing & combat-boots waltzes into the vicinity of an Obama rally or Peace-Mothers-Quilting-For-Freedom gathering, it's assured that OC'ing will take a negative hit by the general public and the media. But if that person is wearing normal clothing (khaki pants, nice button-down shirt or tasteful t-shirt, nice shoes) and an unobtrusive holstered handgun, and they're harrassed, detained, or ejected from a public area while doing absolutely nothing illegal, there's no way that person is projecting a bad image onto the cause. Rather the general public is going to see the horrible, unconstitutional treatment of a normal, law-abiding citizen, and therefore our cause will gain support amongst those people who would've otherwise not thought of or been aware of OC. Hiding our handguns because there might be some people presentwhohave a fear or hatredof freedom and/or guns, believe that only LEOs/military should carry handguns, or are just plain ignorant of the law,is not helping our cause in any way. Gun-owners who are against OC because protecting the pro-2nd Amendment movement's image is more important than actually making the injustices visible, are basically saying that we should fight the anti-gun agenda half-assed.
There's a difference to being against OC, and choosing not to OC.Many who are against OC for political reasons like to veil them in quasi-tactical reasoning. But those who choose not to OC for valid individual, tactical reasons mainly still support other who OC, and don't suggest that OC'ers like Mrs. Hain "should've known better" and OC'ed only to cause a ruckus.
AWDstylez wrote:
Riding in a vehicle? Having a concealed handgun trapped under clothing and against a seatbelt isn't exactly practical. Being outsidein hot weatherand wearing a handgun against the body? If comfort isn't an issue for you, then sweat dripping into the handgun and rusting internal parts shouldbe.
Not wearing a handgun openly becauseit's not considered sociallyacceptable by some people and the media is in no way helpingour cause. OC used to be much more commonplace, and therefore was more socially acceptable because of it's commonality. But asconcealed-carry became possible & legal(though controlled by permit) OC became less common, the anti-gun crowd & the media began to insinuate that it's not socially acceptable, that it's the last vestige of a bygone era, and that those who do OC are backcountry hicks clinging to an outdated way of life (and their guns/bible).
Last I checked, being oppressed by others due to their opinions is not supported or allowable by the Constitution. However, should something like OC become so uncommon that it wouldn't be missed if made illegal, makes it quite possible that agenda-driven lawmakers will take the opportunity to truly outlaw OC. That's the true danger to our cause, and not making it look bad in public. Of course if the general public simply never sees someone OC'ing, they're going to be worried or even scared should an OC'er show up in a public place, even if it's totally legal.
If someone OC'ing with a drop-thigh holster, 7 extra mags, camo/"tactical" clothing & combat-boots waltzes into the vicinity of an Obama rally or Peace-Mothers-Quilting-For-Freedom gathering, it's assured that OC'ing will take a negative hit by the general public and the media. But if that person is wearing normal clothing (khaki pants, nice button-down shirt or tasteful t-shirt, nice shoes) and an unobtrusive holstered handgun, and they're harrassed, detained, or ejected from a public area while doing absolutely nothing illegal, there's no way that person is projecting a bad image onto the cause. Rather the general public is going to see the horrible, unconstitutional treatment of a normal, law-abiding citizen, and therefore our cause will gain support amongst those people who would've otherwise not thought of or been aware of OC. Hiding our handguns because there might be some people presentwhohave a fear or hatredof freedom and/or guns, believe that only LEOs/military should carry handguns, or are just plain ignorant of the law,is not helping our cause in any way. Gun-owners who are against OC because protecting the pro-2nd Amendment movement's image is more important than actually making the injustices visible, are basically saying that we should fight the anti-gun agenda half-assed.
There's a difference to being against OC, and choosing not to OC.Many who are against OC for political reasons like to veil them in quasi-tactical reasoning. But those who choose not to OC for valid individual, tactical reasons mainly still support other who OC, and don't suggest that OC'ers like Mrs. Hain "should've known better" and OC'ed only to cause a ruckus.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Haha! Yea, because him quoting the part of my post most irrelevant to the topic in order to make a smart-ass comment about it wasn't the least bit intentionally antogonistic. Grow up. :quirky
hsmith wrote:
The comparison is identical. You think it is not only perfectly appropriate, but also helpful to the causeto OC anywhere, anytime, regardless of what effect it has on the publicbecause it is your "right" to do so. Your logic boils down to: "Because I can, I will. And because I can and I will, it must be the best course of action." Therefore, sword analogy is identical. Please explain how it isn't.
I've said it plenty of times already and I'll say it again, this is OC.com, not sit around and stroke each other.com. The point of the site isn't for you make a thread and then everyone to come in and tell you how right you are and commence with rounds of back patting and nut rubbing. The site is for intelligent discussion. If you can't handle anyone disagreeing with you, you might want to remove yourself from the internet. As for the ignorant, "troll" comments... I'm not sure what you think a "troll" is. A troll is someone that goes around talking shit in random threads with little to no thought, substance, or contribution behind their posts. Someone posting articulate arguments, that you happen to not agree with, and offending you by not automatically swinging from your nuts isn't a troll. Just because you don't like to hear it told how it is doesn't make me the troll.
OmSigDAVID, the thread about OC'ing in the rain is right here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=14994&forum_id=65&highlight=oc+rain
mkl said:
Haha! Yea, because him quoting the part of my post most irrelevant to the topic in order to make a smart-ass comment about it wasn't the least bit intentionally antogonistic. Grow up. :quirky
hsmith wrote:
The comparison is identical. You think it is not only perfectly appropriate, but also helpful to the causeto OC anywhere, anytime, regardless of what effect it has on the publicbecause it is your "right" to do so. Your logic boils down to: "Because I can, I will. And because I can and I will, it must be the best course of action." Therefore, sword analogy is identical. Please explain how it isn't.
I've said it plenty of times already and I'll say it again, this is OC.com, not sit around and stroke each other.com. The point of the site isn't for you make a thread and then everyone to come in and tell you how right you are and commence with rounds of back patting and nut rubbing. The site is for intelligent discussion. If you can't handle anyone disagreeing with you, you might want to remove yourself from the internet. As for the ignorant, "troll" comments... I'm not sure what you think a "troll" is. A troll is someone that goes around talking shit in random threads with little to no thought, substance, or contribution behind their posts. Someone posting articulate arguments, that you happen to not agree with, and offending you by not automatically swinging from your nuts isn't a troll. Just because you don't like to hear it told how it is doesn't make me the troll.
OmSigDAVID, the thread about OC'ing in the rain is right here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=14994&forum_id=65&highlight=oc+rain
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
AnaxImperator wrote:
That's a very fine lineto walk, because if you don't think they have a valid point you're fooling yourself.
AnaxImperator wrote:
That's a very fine lineto walk, because if you don't think they have a valid point you're fooling yourself.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
The sword versus gun analogy is of questionable validity... Is a sword such a vital tool that people who need to defend themselves and others are already carrying them, perhaps concealed? No. Now, if you'd like to post an analysis of the tactical advantages of swords in self-defense, and how they are the weapon of choice of the security industry, I'm all ears.
Now, if you really wanted to get the OCDO members to quiver in their proverbial boots, you would have used the example of LGOC, long gun open carry. Perhaps ask whether it's appropriate to walk around everywhere with an AR strapped to one's back.
AWDstylez wrote:
The general argument for OCing everywhere one is legally allowed to do so is to gain acceptance. Yes, people will get angered by it. But at least in states where there is strong-ish pro-gun sentiment in the legislature, there is little risk of the foaming-at-the-mouth soccer moms banning OC (and/or CC). That's probably why we haven't seen any anti-OC public policy changes due to OC (as far as I'm aware). Quite simply, people fall into four groups: those who embrace OC, those who aren't offended by it, those who are offended by OC but apply reasoning to it and move into one of the former groups, and those who are gravely offended by OC and try to ban it.
The sword versus gun analogy is of questionable validity... Is a sword such a vital tool that people who need to defend themselves and others are already carrying them, perhaps concealed? No. Now, if you'd like to post an analysis of the tactical advantages of swords in self-defense, and how they are the weapon of choice of the security industry, I'm all ears.
Now, if you really wanted to get the OCDO members to quiver in their proverbial boots, you would have used the example of LGOC, long gun open carry. Perhaps ask whether it's appropriate to walk around everywhere with an AR strapped to one's back.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
imperialism2024 wrote:
Exactly, and in somes states (here, for example) that would be an issue. That's what this thread is about and why people from those states have the opinions that they do.
Long gun carry is also an excellent example, thank you. Just because you can, it doesn't mean it's necessarily in your, or the OC cause's, best interest.
imperialism2024 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:The general argument for OCing everywhere one is legally allowed to do so is to gain acceptance. Yes, people will get angered by it. But at least in states where there is strong-ish pro-gun sentiment in the legislature, there is little risk of the foaming-at-the-mouth soccer moms banning OC (and/or CC). That's probably why we haven't seen any anti-OC public policy changes due to OC (as far as I'm aware). Quite simply, people fall into four groups: those who embrace OC, those who aren't offended by it, those who are offended by OC but apply reasoning to it and move into one of the former groups, and those who are gravely offended by OC and try to ban it.
The sword versus gun analogy is of questionable validity... Is a sword such a vital tool that people who need to defend themselves and others are already carrying them, perhaps concealed? No. Now, if you'd like to post an analysis of the tactical advantages of swords in self-defense, and how they are the weapon of choice of the security industry, I'm all ears.
Now, if you really wanted to get the OCDO members to quiver in their proverbial boots, you would have used the example of LGOC, long gun open carry. Perhaps ask whether it's appropriate to walk around everywhere with an AR strapped to one's back.
Exactly, and in somes states (here, for example) that would be an issue. That's what this thread is about and why people from those states have the opinions that they do.
Long gun carry is also an excellent example, thank you. Just because you can, it doesn't mean it's necessarily in your, or the OC cause's, best interest.
mvpel
Regular Member
imported post
This site isn't about swords, rifles, battle-axes, or any other slimy dead red herring that anyone wants to throw out into a thread.
It's about open carry of handguns, which, as the Army has known for centuries, are generally DEFENSIVE weapons. Rifles are generally OFFENSIVE weapons, so they have little relevance to the issue of personal self-defense: "From the beginning, the development of the rifle has been motivated by the desire to project a force to a distance in an attempt to destroy something."
The Supreme Court itself has indicated this year, once again, that OPEN CARRY is what constitutes the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and that concealed carry may be subject to licensing. And something that can be licensed is not a right.
In the process of reclaiming long-abused and abrogated rights, it sometimes will make some people uncomfortable, mainly those people who orchestrate or are complicit in the abuse and abrogation of the right.
This site isn't about swords, rifles, battle-axes, or any other slimy dead red herring that anyone wants to throw out into a thread.
It's about open carry of handguns, which, as the Army has known for centuries, are generally DEFENSIVE weapons. Rifles are generally OFFENSIVE weapons, so they have little relevance to the issue of personal self-defense: "From the beginning, the development of the rifle has been motivated by the desire to project a force to a distance in an attempt to destroy something."
The Supreme Court itself has indicated this year, once again, that OPEN CARRY is what constitutes the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and that concealed carry may be subject to licensing. And something that can be licensed is not a right.
In the process of reclaiming long-abused and abrogated rights, it sometimes will make some people uncomfortable, mainly those people who orchestrate or are complicit in the abuse and abrogation of the right.
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
imported post
mvpel wrote:
That's right on the money. I argue about this fromtime to time with my father, although he's more concerned with keeping the element of suprise w/ CC. I probably would OC (after we legalize it in Tx), and I wouldn't care if some bed wetting hippie ran shrieking out of thestore after seeing it.
This picture is a perfect example of people exersizing unpopular rights, even getting their a$$es kicked in the process sometimes, until it becomes just an ordinary sight.
mvpel wrote:
This site isn't about swords, rifles, battle-axes, or any other slimy dead red herring that anyone wants to throw out into a thread.
It's about open carry of handguns, which, as the Army has known for centuries, are generally DEFENSIVE weapons. Rifles are generally OFFENSIVE weapons, so they have little relevance to the issue of personal self-defense: "From the beginning, the development of the rifle has been motivated by the desire to project a force to a distance in an attempt to destroy something."
The Supreme Court itself has indicated this year, once again, that OPEN CARRY is what constitutes the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and that concealed carry may be subject to licensing. And something that can be licensed is not a right.
In the process of reclaiming long-abused and abrogated rights, it sometimes will make some people uncomfortable, mainly those people who orchestrate or are complicit in the abuse and abrogation of the right.
That's right on the money. I argue about this fromtime to time with my father, although he's more concerned with keeping the element of suprise w/ CC. I probably would OC (after we legalize it in Tx), and I wouldn't care if some bed wetting hippie ran shrieking out of thestore after seeing it.
This picture is a perfect example of people exersizing unpopular rights, even getting their a$$es kicked in the process sometimes, until it becomes just an ordinary sight.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
mvpel wrote:
Hahaha! Please tell me you didn't just compare the OC movement to desegregation.
And this site is OC.com, not handgunOC.com. The second amendment says "keep and bear ARMS," not, "keep and bear HANDGUNS." OC ofa rifle, sword, shotgun, ninja star, or crossbowis just as valid, albeit extreme, way of promoting OC and second amendment rights. I'm not saying it's the best idea, it's obviously not, but then that's exactly my point. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. Like I suggested before, why is everyone so against easing into it? Why do you have to immediately jump to carrying at a political rally or school? It took 100+ years to SLOWLYremove firearms as commonplace in this society. What makes you think they'll be restored any faster? People respond better to slow change than immediate change.
mvpel wrote:
Hahaha! Please tell me you didn't just compare the OC movement to desegregation.
And this site is OC.com, not handgunOC.com. The second amendment says "keep and bear ARMS," not, "keep and bear HANDGUNS." OC ofa rifle, sword, shotgun, ninja star, or crossbowis just as valid, albeit extreme, way of promoting OC and second amendment rights. I'm not saying it's the best idea, it's obviously not, but then that's exactly my point. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. Like I suggested before, why is everyone so against easing into it? Why do you have to immediately jump to carrying at a political rally or school? It took 100+ years to SLOWLYremove firearms as commonplace in this society. What makes you think they'll be restored any faster? People respond better to slow change than immediate change.