Statesman
Regular Member
imported post
Good point to consider. We should be concerned about public relations with respect to the OC movement. Even if we do, OC opponents will find something to complain about regardless. I've often worried about how OC is perceived by the masses. Frankly, the lady in the blue shirt is sporting more of a sexy look if you ask me. Even if she is interpreted in a negative way towards OC, we have three other OC people in similar images on the site. To your point, the others are not on the main page.
OC and CC is a preference, and neither option should be eliminated from choice. Some situations, as interpreted by individual thought, call for OC, some do not.
How is it a step backwards? What if non-aggressive, responsible gun owners that OC, have a positive effect on society as a whole? Then again, with Obama in office, I'm sure he'll do a good job of convincing his blind followers that a gun on the street is a bad one, and we should have less. I think conveinient store clerks should OC, and their managers should encourage it. Customers would get used to seeing them OC, and would understand it is for their own protection.
Do police officers OC because of ego and pride? Armed security guards? Do they appear egotistical? It's more likely they do it because it portrays a desired effect on those who would harm them or others when in their presense. Compare that effect to the same police officer in plain clothes, concealed carrying. The deterrent effect on crime would simply not exist. I believe this freedom was guaranteed to the people, in many states, for that reason alone.
Here, you may be mistakenly confusing permission to do something, with freedom. The two are polar opposites. What we generally have with CC is government permission. I believe it is an asset only for specific situations where OC would clearly not be well received, and the property owner(s) would reject it outright. That is the main purpose of CC, in my view.
Satisfied? Hell no! I will not be satisfied with licensed activities in place of God given rights. A license is permission to own a specified thing, or perform some activity that would otherwise be unlawful. Open Carry is a right in many states, and it needs no permission from an arbitary authority who [eventually] abuses its powers.
I would strongly urge the administrators to replace the image on the index page of the site. The young lady, though attractive, epitomizes negativity that opponents of open carry associate with it. She displays a smug, smart-alecky attitude loaded with ego – “Look at me; I’m carrying a gun!” This is not the attitude that legal gun carriers want to portray whether they be concealed or open carriers.
Good point to consider. We should be concerned about public relations with respect to the OC movement. Even if we do, OC opponents will find something to complain about regardless. I've often worried about how OC is perceived by the masses. Frankly, the lady in the blue shirt is sporting more of a sexy look if you ask me. Even if she is interpreted in a negative way towards OC, we have three other OC people in similar images on the site. To your point, the others are not on the main page.
I have carried legally in Texas for 5 years. I never go out of the house without being armed. I am even armed when I take out the garbage. But I don’t take pride in that fact. It is just something that I do to protect myself. I like my weapon concealed. It is concealed in such as fashion that I can access it faster than if it were carried openly. If I am in a situation where I might have to use it, I don’t want the opponent to know that I am his/her enemy. This may give them the advantage. I want to surprise him/her.
OC and CC is a preference, and neither option should be eliminated from choice. Some situations, as interpreted by individual thought, call for OC, some do not.
Therefore, I think this whole open carry movement is a step backwards.
How is it a step backwards? What if non-aggressive, responsible gun owners that OC, have a positive effect on society as a whole? Then again, with Obama in office, I'm sure he'll do a good job of convincing his blind followers that a gun on the street is a bad one, and we should have less. I think conveinient store clerks should OC, and their managers should encourage it. Customers would get used to seeing them OC, and would understand it is for their own protection.
The prime reason most are interested in it is ego and pride. Doubt that? Seriously examine your thoughts for a period. Those that don’t carry and those that are opposed to weapons are quick to see this and will use this as a prime motivation to defeat it.
Do police officers OC because of ego and pride? Armed security guards? Do they appear egotistical? It's more likely they do it because it portrays a desired effect on those who would harm them or others when in their presense. Compare that effect to the same police officer in plain clothes, concealed carrying. The deterrent effect on crime would simply not exist. I believe this freedom was guaranteed to the people, in many states, for that reason alone.
We have a great asset in concealed carry. Let’s be satisfied with that. The movement for open carry could weaken the public support for concealed carry.
Here, you may be mistakenly confusing permission to do something, with freedom. The two are polar opposites. What we generally have with CC is government permission. I believe it is an asset only for specific situations where OC would clearly not be well received, and the property owner(s) would reject it outright. That is the main purpose of CC, in my view.
Satisfied? Hell no! I will not be satisfied with licensed activities in place of God given rights. A license is permission to own a specified thing, or perform some activity that would otherwise be unlawful. Open Carry is a right in many states, and it needs no permission from an arbitary authority who [eventually] abuses its powers.