The most anti-OC'ing "pro gun" people

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Oh, entirely correct. I had thought to bring up the civil rights movement, but left it out. Mainly due to the fact that skin color is something that tangibly can't be changed, whereas carrying a gun is seen by anti-gunners as a personal choice that can be negated by overzealous government. In other words, you can't choose not to be black, but you can choose to leave your gun at home. Or at least that's how the sh**ple think.

I don't mean to support the anti-OC-everywhere arguments, but rather to clarify them and make them more relevant to the discussion.

On a side note, the best response to "element of surprise" arguments I've ever seen, though I've forgotten who said it and when: "Element of surprise? Oh, you mean like when you have a gun pointed at you, and you're suddenly surprised by how little your concealed handgun is helping you?"

imported post

AWDstylez 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.

Click to expand...

Sure it's just as valid, but you seem to be the only one bringing rifles, swords, shotguns, or crossbows into the discussion. Here's the banner image:



Notice any rifles, swords, shotguns, or crossbows there?

Given the hassles that some people are encountering for simply carrying handguns, what makes you think that people are not "easing" into it? Danbus had guns drawn on him, and won a lawsuit for $10,000.

If he'd been "easing" into it, he wouldn't have been carrying openly in the first place, wouldn't have been carrying openly "near a bank" due to the voodoo superstitions of passerby, or would have simply sent a stern letter and tried to talk the City into changing their policies instead of suing their sorry butts and winning. Even the lawsuit apparently didn't work well enough to change their ways given his most recent experience.

You seem to suggest that in the process of securing our civil rights, that we should be willing to wait a hundred years like the people who preceded the Civil Rights Movement did, who thought that just because you CAN sit in the front of the bus doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Back in the 60's, a black man and a white woman holding hands in public was an extremist act. Today, some people see lawful and peaceable open carry of a defensive arm in exactly the same way.

But if you don't push the envelope at all, how can you ever fly any higher?

As for open carry of rifles, it's a sad commentary on the state of New Hampshire that police get calls about men dressed in camo walking down a rural road carrying a rifle in November. Once the dispatchers stop laughing, they set the caller straight. How will we get to that point with open carry of defensive arms if we stay hidden or honor other peoples' irrational voodoo superstitions in the fear of "offending" them?

imported post

Where is the insight anymore.
This was the perfect place to OC. Hasn't the government noted how unsafe
sports events are. If they wern't then why have these felony laws for yelling at a ref.

The legislature agrees for the need to carry, and thats good enough for me.
After all, now that the refs are protected, it is only a matter of time before the
dangerous ones turn to the parents to vent and worse.

Alas, our state blocks this venue from us.

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Nice strawman you douchecanoe. I'm getting tired of strawmans being usedby nearly everyone here so I'm going to start calling them as I see them. I never said it wasn't a right and making a concious choice to NOT exercise a right is most definitely not equivalent to giving up the right. I also straight up said I support open carry, I just choose not to do so myself because I don't believe it is approriate in the places I frequent.

As already stated, I can walk through the mall with a sword strapped to my back. I'd be well within my rights and the law. Does that make it a good idea? It's my first amendment right to speak my mind whenever and wherever I want. Does that make it the most prudent course of action if I'm looking to promote the first amendemnt? Hell no.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

QFT

imported post

mvpel wrote:

How will we get to that point with open carry of defensive arms if we stay hidden or honor other peoples' irrational voodoo superstitions in the fear of "offending" them?

Click to expand...

Very well said, that's exactly how I feel.

imported post

mvpel wrote:

How will we get to that point with open carry of defensive arms if we stay hidden or honor other peoples' irrational voodoo superstitions in the fear of "offending" them?

Click to expand...

I never said don't OC. I said to be careful and conscious of where and how you do it. While offending a handful of people may be necessary, offending a very large number of people is detrimental to the cause.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

mvpel wrote:

How will we get to that point with open carry of defensive arms if we stay hidden or honor other peoples' irrational voodoo superstitions in the fear of "offending" them?

Click to expand...

I never said don't OC. I said to be careful and conscious of where and how you do it. While offending a handful of people may be necessary, offending a very large number of people is detrimental to the cause.

Click to expand...

You mean like you're doing here?

imported post

mvpel wrote:

Notice any rifles, swords, shotguns, or crossbows there?

Click to expand...

imported post

^LOL!

Aran wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

mvpel wrote:

How will we get to that point with open carry of defensive arms if we stay hidden or honor other peoples' irrational voodoo superstitions in the fear of "offending" them?

Click to expand...

I never said don't OC. I said to be careful and conscious of where and how you do it. While offending a handful of people may be necessary, offending a very large number of people is detrimental to the cause.

Click to expand...

You mean like you're doing here?

Click to expand...

Sorry, cupcake. I don't really care who Ioffend with reality. Reality can be pretty offensive sometimes. That's why we havepolitical correctness to protect people from it. I realize that many people here think that absolute agreement with the standard,libertarian hillbilly line of thinking is a requirement to post, but it isn't.I'm here to tell it like it is, not to please you. Try hitting up the Asian, happy-ending massage parlor if that's what you're looking for.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

^LOL!

Aran wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

mvpel wrote:

How will we get to that point with open carry of defensive arms if we stay hidden or honor other peoples' irrational voodoo superstitions in the fear of "offending" them?

Click to expand...

I never said don't OC. I said to be careful and conscious of where and how you do it. While offending a handful of people may be necessary, offending a very large number of people is detrimental to the cause.

Click to expand...

You mean like you're doing here?

Click to expand...

Sorry, cupcake. I don't really care who Ioffend with reality. Reality can be pretty offensive sometimes. That's why we havepolitical correctness to protect people from it. I realize that many people here think that absolute agreement with the standard,libertarian hillbilly line of thinking is a requirement to post, but it isn't.I'm here to tell it like it is, not to please you. Try hitting up the Asian, happy-ending massage parlor if that's what you're looking for.

Click to expand...

More personal attacks and adding nothing to the discussion.

imported post

hsmith wrote:

More personal attacks and adding nothing to the discussion.

Click to expand...

The irony pains me. Your post is worthless and has zero to do with the topic, much like the one I was respondingto.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

I never said don't OC. I said to be careful and conscious of where and how you do it. While offending a handful of people may be necessary, offending a very large number of people is detrimental to the cause.

Click to expand...

But you did suggest that the only appropriate place to OC was in the backwoods of somewhere. If that is the only place that we ever OC no one will ever be educated.

And how exactly are people "offended" by my openly carrying a handgun? They might not like it but offended?

imported post

heresolong wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

I never said don't OC. I said to be careful and conscious of where and how you do it. While offending a handful of people may be necessary, offending a very large number of people is detrimental to the cause.

Click to expand...

But you did suggest that the only appropriate place to OC was in the backwoods of somewhere. If that is the only place that we ever OC no one will ever be educated.

And how exactly are people "offended" by my openly carrying a handgun? They might not like it but offended?

Click to expand...

I never suggested that at all. I simply gave it as an example. There are about half a trillion things that factor into whether it's appropriate to OC somewhere or not, and someone that's familiar with the area and possesses and ability to think objectively will be able to determine the appropriateness in about 0.2 seconds.

As for offending people, reference the incidents already mentioned: the Idaho zoo meet and the guy carrying outside the Obama rally. Both pissed people off and reflected negatively on the cause as a whole. When people don't like something, it could be said they "take offense to it."However you want to describe it, it pisses people off inwhen done inappropriately. Don't play the semantics game.

The original news article on the rally carrying incident (which ofcourse is long gone on this site, replaced by biased articles leaving out the police comments)had an outstanding analogy to put "appropriateness" into perspective for you. One of the arresting officers basically said to reevaluate how you would have reacted if it was a Muslim family protesting, in full mid-east dress, holding a Qur'an, outside a GOP rally, exercsing their "free speech" right. Don't even think to tell me you would have anything but a negative reaction to that situation. Perfectly legal, but definitely not appropriate. Think before you act because you actions reflect on more than just yourself.

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Nice strawman you douchecanoe. I'm getting tired of strawmans being usedby nearly everyone here so I'm going to start calling them as I see them. I never said it wasn't a right and making a concious choice to NOT exercise a right is most definitely not equivalent to giving up the right. I also straight up said I support open carry, I just choose not to do so myself because I don't believe it is approriate in the places I frequent.

As already stated, I can walk through the mall with a sword strapped to my back. I'd be well within my rights and the law. Does that make it a good idea? It's my first amendment right to speak my mind whenever and wherever I want. Does that make it the most prudent course of action if I'm looking to promote the first amendemnt? Hell no.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Troll, indeed. He's already been banned from my forum for the same personal attacks and display of immaturity.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

As for offending people, reference the incidents already mentioned: the Idaho zoo meet and the guy carrying outside the Obama rally. Both pissed people off and reflected negatively on the cause as a whole. When people don't like something, it could be said they "take offense to it."However you want to describe it, it pisses people off inwhen done inappropriately. Don't play the semantics game.

Click to expand...

If a random stranger takes offense to a person that is minding their own lawful business, then that sounds like a problem/issue with the offended individual.

If your neighbors on your block took offense to white t-shirts, would you begin to not wear one while you mowed the lawn, simply to avoid offending them? Or what if your neighboring town completely despised Mitsubishi cars, and took great offense to those who drove through in their Eclipses. Would you take the long way around that town to avoid offending anyone?

How far would you go to forfeit your own rights just to satisfy those easily offendable people in the World?

And what is and isn't appropriate is only a matter of opinion. Many of your posts here (and other forums) are inappropriate in my eyes, but here you stand regardless. In my opinion, "inappropriate" is how the local anti-gunners are treating Mrs. Hain's rights."Inappropriate" ishow some LEO's are handling MWAG/OC calls/situations around the country. Like I said; it's all a matter of opinion. Just like those neighbors that don't like your shirt or your car. Fortunately for us, other's opinions aren't law and rule.

imported post

Paul Volk wrote:

compmanio365 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Nice strawman you douchecanoe. I'm getting tired of strawmans being usedby nearly everyone here so I'm going to start calling them as I see them. I never said it wasn't a right and making a concious choice to NOT exercise a right is most definitely not equivalent to giving up the right. I also straight up said I support open carry, I just choose not to do so myself because I don't believe it is approriate in the places I frequent.

As already stated, I can walk through the mall with a sword strapped to my back. I'd be well within my rights and the law. Does that make it a good idea? It's my first amendment right to speak my mind whenever and wherever I want. Does that make it the most prudent course of action if I'm looking to promote the first amendemnt? Hell no.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Troll, indeed. He's already been banned from my forum for the same personal attacks and display of immaturity.

Click to expand...

LOL

And what forum is that? You realize he was talking about me, right?


Ah, I see you're from tuners. I'll have to LOL @joox2. I don't even know where to start with that one. No one in that entire community (on the site or not) wants to be told they're wrong and a 16g won't make 400whpin the real world. Not my problem.:lol:


It's essentially the same in every niche community. No one wants to hear anything outside of the party line (zomg 16g so fast!!!!11)and anyone that doesn't subscribe to it is a "troll." Reality hurts sometimes. The DSMtards came around about two years after I left anyway. I guess the two communities are the same in that aspect as well, conservatives: fighting progress since the beginning of time.

Paul Volk wrote:

If a random stranger takes offense to a person that is minding their own lawful business, then that sounds like a problem/issue with the offended individual.

If your neighbors on your block took offense to white t-shirts, would you begin to not wear one while you mowed the lawn, simply to avoid offending them? Or what if your neighboring town completely despised Mitsubishi cars, and took great offense to those who drove through in their Eclipses. Would you take the long way around that town to avoid offending anyone?

How far would you go to forfeit your own rights just to satisfy those easily offendable people in the World?

Click to expand...

Hello there Mr. Fallacy, meet Mr. Reality. *handshake*

Ever heard of the "reasonable person"? Maybe you have, maybe you haven't, doesn't really matter. No "reasonable person" would take offense to white tee shirts or DSM's. However, let's say you were somewhere where white was a rival gang color. Would you think twice before exercising your right to wear white in that neighborhood, lest you offend someone and get killed? Let's make it a little closer to home and a little tighter of an analogy. Is burning astatue of Jesus outside of a church in a heavily Christian community the best way to promote first amendment rights? You have every right to do. Maybe I'll go do it now and scream "FREE SPEECH!" while it burns. Surely those whiny pussies at church getting offended at my perfectly legal and constitutional actions will have no negative impact on my free speech promotion.They're the ones with the issue, not me. Where's that honda-tech hammer?

The fact of the matter is that you have every right to make piss-poor, not-well-thought-out decisions. No one is stopping you or arguing against your ability to do so. I'm simply pointing out how those decisions rarely work in your favor. And since you, being a gun owner first and alsoan OC'er (basicallya poster-child forfirearms rights as far as thepublic is concerned), reflect on all of us gun owners, asking for you to have the courtesy to think before you blindly and ignorantly act based on, "well it's my right, so I'll do it because I can,"isn't too much.

imported post

What I'm readin' here...I think... is the rather uptite pedestrian views of a NE Corridor city boy more concerned with 'image' than the free exercise of a Right.

I don't OC for some 'political statement... or as a fashion accessory... or 'cause it 'looks cool'... or any other false rationalization other than my own defense if need be.

I've been to war (three times) 'n it's not fun... I've been a cop... 'n that wasn't a fun way to make livin' either... even for a former adrenilin junkie such as I. I OC 'cause the weapon is readily accessable... the climate rather prohibits CC... and it's hardly a novelty to do so.

I havean Arizona CWP... for concealed... not to 'carry'. I can carry w/o anybody's permission... as it should be (everywhere). Unfortunately it isn't... which is why OCDO exists.

"I realize that many people here think that absolute agreement with the standard,libertarian hillbilly line of thinking is a requirement to post, but it isn't."

Now if that ain't the essence of sniffy yankeethink I dunno what is. :X

Yeah... you CAN (or should be able to) OC long guns... swords, long knives... whatever floats yer boat.They'reall Arms. And yeah... you could expect some 'looks' 'cause it's not commonly observed. But... if a broadsword is yer weapon of choice... go for it. WhenI was a cop... 'had an older man (72) beat off two armed attackers with a Katana. 'Took the forearm 'n hand off one... 'n about gutted the second one. Self defense.

Concealing ones arms at one time was considered an 'evil practice'. (verbatim) Ya don't see the BG's openly heeled either... do ya? They don't even wear gunleather. Why? 'Cause those guns were stolen... or came easy... and will be tossed w/o a blink if they no longer serve a criminal purpose. We (obviously) do not all live in uberliberal cities or States. We obviouslyall do not share in in the social ostracizim(sp?) some would associate with OC either. We are not of the sheep... and wear our fangs bared. The sheep will either have to understand it... or grow a pair. They are predestined to remain sheep... and we have to recognize that too.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

They are predestined to remain sheep... and we have to recognize that too.

Click to expand...

Says who? That flies in the face of the OC.com ideal of educating the public (which I happen to support).

There's so much to tear about in that post...

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

We are not of the sheep... and wear our fangs bared. The sheep will either have to understand it... or grow a pair. They are predestined to remain sheep... and we have to recognize that too.

Click to expand...

To add some more confusion to the analogy, there are sheepdogs who have been brainwashed to being sheep. OCDO and those of us who open carry help them to be who they really are. I was one of these until I found this site.

So, I thank all the OCers for helping me to resharpen my dulled fangs.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote

Says who? That flies in the face of the OC.com ideal of educating the public (which I happen to support).

There's so much to tear about in that post...

Click to expand...

AWDstylez, what is OC.com? I've tried to google OC.com, but I just get referred to sites that have nothing to do with guns or open carry. Are you talking about oc.ORG?

I've been trying to understand everyone's position here, but some of the virulent postings make that a little difficult. It's especially hard to understand what AWDstylez is trying to put across.