I am amazed at how many permit holders are against open carry!

dodge310 · Dec 2, 2008

imported post

jhuskey1861 wrote:

And the leo spoke of carrying as being a "privilege". When did a right become a privilege?

One thing that you need to remember. Everyone says we live in the land of the FREE. We are only as free as the Government allows us to be. So is it a privilage to Carry a Gun? IMO YES.

Just think of everything else that we use to be able to do. Then some jackasses decided to push it and they ended up ruining it for everyone. There are so many things that have been taken away from us as US Citizens it isn't funny.

Personally, I look at being able to Carry a gun as a Privilage and one that we as the public should not push. If you push something too far, it will be taken away.

Task Force 16 · Dec 2, 2008

imported post

deleted post, seem to ahve got it crossed up with another thread.

carracer · Dec 2, 2008

imported post

I don't get it. I have a cc permit and have no objection to open carry at all.

marshaul · Dec 2, 2008

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

dodge310 wrote:

jhuskey1861 wrote:

And the leo spoke of carrying as being a "privilege". When did a right become a privilege?

Click to expand...

One thing that you need to remember. Everyone says we live in the land of the FREE. We are only as free as the Government allows us to be. So is it a privilage to Carry a Gun? IMO YES.

Just think of everything else that we use to be able to do. Then some jackasses decided to push it and they ended up ruining it for everyone. There are so many things that have been taken away from us as US Citizens it isn't funny.

Personally, I look at being able to Carry a gun as a Privilage and one that we as the public should not push. If you push something too far, it will be taken away.

Click to expand...

I believe you are confusing "pushing" a privilege with "abusing" it. And you are confusing a "pivilege" with a "right". A privilege is something you have earned. A right is something you are born with and is protected by the 2nd Article of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights.

Pushing for recognition of are right to KABA however we choose without threat of judicial repercusions is NOT abusing that right.

Elected officials attempting to surpress our right to keep and bare arms is an abuse of their privilege to hold office. That's right, being an elected official is a privilege, NOT a "right". Their privilege to be in public office (a position of power) can and should be taken away from them if they abuse it.

Actually, I don't think he's really confusing anything. I think he really believes that people should be given "privileges" by the government, and be thankful lest those privileges be revoked. It's a fundamentally different philosophy from the one you and I share. I'm not sure you can hope to describe it using the phraseology of our perspective.

dodge310 · Dec 2, 2008

imported post

I'm not confusing anything. A right is a right. I'm just stating the Obvious with any Stupid Government. Our rights have been taken away slowly over the years anyways. (Don't over read what I wrote, I have the right to carry and to own guns and I won't be giving them up either)

I don't understand the problem with OC either. I'm trying to read up on what the problems are with this. I dont understand how it is a step backwards.

Task Force 16 · Dec 2, 2008

imported post

dodge310 wrote:

I'm not confusing anything. A right is a right. I'm just stating the Obvious with any Stupid Government. Our rights have been taken away slowly over the years anyways. (Don't over read what I wrote, I have the right to carry and to own guns and I won't be giving them up either)

I don't understand the problem with OC either. I'm trying to read up on what the problems are with this. I dont understand how it is a step backwards.

Sorry dodge, I seem to have gotten crossed up with another thread. :banghead:I deleted the post.

Now to find where it needed to go.

Graymutt · Dec 3, 2008

imported post

After having many conversations with my fellow CHL's the only point that was valid for not wanting open carry is that how do you know if a person that is carrying is not a felon? there were many other things that came up security of the weapon and such but the only thing that passed the common sense test was knowing if the person is a felon.

Pol Mordreth · Dec 3, 2008

imported post

I'm sorry, Greymutt, but why exactly should an ex-felon be denied the basic human right of self defense? If they are that dangerous, they should still be in prison or executed. If they areout, then I am bound to consider them rehibilitated. Do you support denying felons the right to vote, or speak freely about the government? Do you want to deny them the choice of which church they want to attend (if any)? Where do we draw the line?

Respectfully,

Pol

Flyer22 · Dec 3, 2008

imported post

dodge310 wrote:

I'm not confusing anything. A right is a right. I'm just stating the Obvious with any Stupid Government. Our rights have been taken away slowly over the years anyways. (Don't over read what I wrote, I have the right to carry and to own guns and I won't be giving them up either)

I suppose it depends on how you look at things. In my opinion, it's more accurate to say that #1, our rights can never be taken away, but #2, notwithstanding that, people can and have had their ability to exercise their rights taken away from them.

Doug Huffman · Dec 3, 2008

imported post

Graymutt wrote:

After having many conversations with my fellow CHL's the only point that was valid for not wanting open carry is that how do you know if a person that is carrying is not a felon? there were many other things that came up security of the weapon and such but the only thing that passed the common sense test was knowing if the person is a felon.

What keeps a 'felon' from carrying concealed?

If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony even to mere allegations of violence.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

Graymutt · Dec 3, 2008

imported post

Pol Mordreth wrote:

I'm sorry, Greymutt, but why exactly should an ex-felon be denied the basic human right of self defense? If they are that dangerous, they should still be in prison or executed. If they areout, then I am bound to consider them rehibilitated. Do you support denying felons the right to vote, or speak freely about the government? Do you want to deny them the choice of which church they want to attend (if any)? Where do we draw the line?

Respectfully,

Pol

Pol, I understand your point, and I mostly agree. But in a realistic arguement for or against OC, the criminal must be taken into consideration. How do I tell a law abiding from the non law abiding? Where to draw the line is the biggest question for me in anything the goverment does. My simple but honest opinion is that the line is when something starts hurting or endangering others, esspecially children. I will say that law abiding citizens have a right to own, carry and do what they want. Yes I consider felons that have paid there punishment, law abiding citizens. I was going to write a whole list of things that would forfiet the right to own or carry a weapon. Instead I will just say that there are things that cause a right to be forfiet, criminals forfiet the right of freedom,or there life, when they commit crimes. Other rights are subject to forfiet too. I don't take this lightly, but it is a simple truth.

Doug Huffman · Dec 3, 2008

imported post

Tyranny is fine with some as long it is agreeable to particularly them.

Safety is the first act of security theater and the tyrant's tool because no one can be against safety - and especially if it is for the chilldruun! "It's for the chilldruun" (Joycelyn Elders)

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel · Dec 3, 2008

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Graymutt wrote:

After having many conversations with my fellow CHL's the only point that was valid for not wanting open carry is that how do you know if a person that is carrying is not a felon? there were many other things that came up security of the weapon and such but the only thing that passed the common sense test was knowing if the person is a felon.

Click to expand...

What keeps a 'felon' from carrying concealed?

If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony even to mere allegations of violence....

I agree that all have the RIGHT to defend themselves from threats foreign or domestic.

Many felons have a greater need for self defense than the rest of us.

I had never thought about your logic on lowering the level of an offense to make most of them a felony, but with the recent rash of cruelty to animals laws changes and others, that is just what is happening.

Graymutt · Dec 3, 2008

imported post

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

Graymutt wrote:

After having many conversations with my fellow CHL's the only point that was valid for not wanting open carry is that how do you know if a person that is carrying is not a felon? there were many other things that came up security of the weapon and such but the only thing that passed the common sense test was knowing if the person is a felon.

Click to expand...

What keeps a 'felon' from carrying concealed?

If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony even to mere allegations of violence....

Click to expand...

I agree that all have the RIGHT to defend themselves from threats foreign or domestic.

Many felons have a greater need for self defense than the rest of us.

I had never thought about your logic on lowering the level of an offense to make most of them a felony, but with the recent rash of cruelty to animals laws changes and others, that is just what is happening.

with this logic how can we lock up anyone in prison? Isnt freedom a right?

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel · Dec 3, 2008

imported post

Graymutt wrote:

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

Graymutt wrote:

After having many conversations with my fellow CHL's the only point that was valid for not wanting open carry is that how do you know if a person that is carrying is not a felon? there were many other things that came up security of the weapon and such but the only thing that passed the common sense test was knowing if the person is a felon.

Click to expand...

What keeps a 'felon' from carrying concealed?

If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony even to mere allegations of violence....

Click to expand...

I agree that all have the RIGHT to defend themselves from threats foreign or domestic.

Many felons have a greater need for self defense than the rest of us.

I had never thought about your logic on lowering the level of an offense to make most of them a felony, but with the recent rash of cruelty to animals laws changes and others, that is just what is happening.

Click to expand...

with this logic how can we lock up anyone in prison? Isnt freedom a right?

The key here is responsibility.

We are responsible for our actions. Most of the felons walking the street should have been executed IMO.

Strong quick justice, and freedom with responsibility for our actions, not freedom from responsibility for our actions.

It was not until the 1930's the felons lost their rights to self protection.

The Federal government was not having much luck againstorganized crime.

They then had the bright idea of arresting them on trumpeted up charges, and then making gun ownership by felons illegal so that they could arrest them again if they had a gun.

Graymutt · Dec 3, 2008

imported post

Palidin, I agree..alot of them should have been executed along time ago. But my point is how are we to tell upstanding citizens from a criminal?

Doug Huffman · Dec 3, 2008

imported post

Language must needs be consistent. First it was 'felon' and now it's 'criminal'.

A criminal is one found guilty of a crime by a trier of fact, a judge or jury.

A felon is one liable to more than 365 days incarceration.

Neither epithet is specific on the person's standing on the wide spectrum of evilness. Is a habitual drunk an evil criminal/felon? Or a scofflaw that won't pay his traffic tickets? Or a stern disciplinarian, guilty of beating the devil out of his kid, a criminal?

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

Doug Huffman · Dec 3, 2008

imported post

Your use of the phrase 'upstanding citizen' caught my eye and makes me think of this story. Two personal anecdotes do not data make.

I was in a jury pool for a Judge that evidently had a real hard spot for felons on his juries. Judge Cottingham went to great lengths to define a felon for his purposes as one liable to incarceration for more than 365 days. Not just 'found guilty of a felony'.

Then he asked anyone in the pool of a hundred that even thought that they might potentially be a felon, as he had described it, to step to his bench for a tête à tête. Eighty people, obviously 'upstanding citizens' lined up. I was empaneled.

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel · Dec 3, 2008

imported post

Graymutt wrote:

Palidin, I agree..alot of them should have been executed along time ago. But my point is how are we to tell upstanding citizens from a criminal?

With true freedom, comes inherent risk.

For us to be truly free, we must allow others to be truly free too.

Once a person has paid for his crime he is again an "upstanding citizen"

We should punish the guilty, not persecute them.

For who is what, Doug really said it well;

Doug Huffman wrote:

Language must needs be consistent. First it was 'felon' and now it's 'criminal'.

A criminal is one found guilty of a crime by a trier of fact, a judge or jury.

A felon is one liable to more than 365 days incarceration.

Neither epithet is specific on the person's standing on the wide spectrum of evilness. Is a habitual drunk an evil criminal/felon? Or a scofflaw that won't pay his traffic tickets? Or a stern disciplinarian, guilty of beating the devil out of his kid, a criminal?

marshaul · Dec 3, 2008

imported post

Paladin is right on they money here.

ETA: And Doug too, but I have a tendency to agree with Doug. :uhoh: :lol:

I am amazed at how many permit holders are against open carry!

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

New member

Banned

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

New member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran