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.
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.
