marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Legba wrote:
Legba wrote:
:uhoh:
-
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.
Is your desire for open carry for protection or for your ego?
- Thread starter ideator
- Start date
imported post
I just know one thing for sure.. it has been a REAL bear finding a retention holster that doesn't cause my slide to catch on my fat roll..
Almost reminds me of the COPS episodes where pudgy Johnny Law is huffin n puffin chasin teenage perps.. you know the cameraman is giggling..
I just know one thing for sure.. it has been a REAL bear finding a retention holster that doesn't cause my slide to catch on my fat roll..
Almost reminds me of the COPS episodes where pudgy Johnny Law is huffin n puffin chasin teenage perps.. you know the cameraman is giggling..
JoeSparky
Centurion
imported post
JBURGII wrote:
Don't know about the redneck part but I my case it would be the Short Fat Gray Haired MustachedOLD Man WithA Gun (SFGHMOMWAG). So far it is ONLY 1 chin though!
It would be nice if I were ONLY 40lbs overweight....
JoeSparky
JBURGII wrote:
I think I figured it out.. carrying OC has nothing to do with my ego.. right now I will admit to being about 40 lbs overweight and not in any shape to run away.. I don't have a choice but to stand my ground and defend myself.
Waiting to hear my scanner pipe up with SFRWG (short fat redneck with gun) call.
J
Don't know about the redneck part but I my case it would be the Short Fat Gray Haired MustachedOLD Man WithA Gun (SFGHMOMWAG). So far it is ONLY 1 chin though!
It would be nice if I were ONLY 40lbs overweight....
JoeSparky
pistolerooo
New member
imported post
I'm in Houston and carried since '96. I want the CHL laws to be relaxed so if my pistol is detected, for whatever reason, I won't be arrested and lose my CHL. I believe that there MANY PEOPLE who SHOULD NOT have guns...let alone carry them. There are many people who are responsible enough to carry a pistol and I am all for that. I believe that where I live Open Carry should be limited to those that have a CHL.
I'm in Houston and carried since '96. I want the CHL laws to be relaxed so if my pistol is detected, for whatever reason, I won't be arrested and lose my CHL. I believe that there MANY PEOPLE who SHOULD NOT have guns...let alone carry them. There are many people who are responsible enough to carry a pistol and I am all for that. I believe that where I live Open Carry should be limited to those that have a CHL.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
pistolerooo wrote:
Ahem ... Have you read the constitution and bill of rights? That might help you sort all this out so you can understand why it should not be as you describe.
Just who do you think should be empowered to ration out your rights and extend you privileges?
Regards
pistolerooo wrote:
Another two hit wonder.
Ahem ... Have you read the constitution and bill of rights? That might help you sort all this out so you can understand why it should not be as you describe.
Just who do you think should be empowered to ration out your rights and extend you privileges?
Regards
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
Funny how the antis like to say that the streets will run with blood if OC/CC is permitted, then it NEVER happens. And with OC, if somebody sees someone carrying who is acting strangely/suspiciously/disorderly while armed, the proper authority can be brought to bear. CCW when you cannot for whatever reason show a bulge lest you give away your armed status and be arrested is worthless, as if you will be arrested if your armament is in any way evident, then why bother with the permit??
This ties in with the whole anti view that we who carry are compensating for inadequate male endowment. By some twisted logic of theirs, OCing is the equivlent of "indecent exposure". This is Freudian thinking and guess what antis? FREUD HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED in these matters.
No matter your sex or sexual preference, these days being a firearms owner - let alone someone who carries a weapon openly or concealed - is more likely to be a barrier rather than a boost to getting - uh- well you know. An "Obama/Biden pin and an invitation to a Vegan restaurant; and talk about how everybody needs to understand everybody else and then it will all be okay (or some such drivel) will get you into the sack with a sweetie MUCH more reliably than carrying the means to defend yourself (and your paramour) and voicing your belief in the things that this nation is founded upon. I don't know about you, but if I tried to say something I did not believe in, I would gag on my own words.
Personally I do not OC so that everyone will think I have a big weenie. I OC so that the sub-humans who prey upon people will know that they will not do it in my vicinity and escape unscathed.
And I OC to let folks like the OP know that it is the God-given RIGHT to me and all citizens to do so. If the OP does not like it, then I understand that there are several English-speaking nations he can move to, where he might feel more comfortable. Why don't the Antis just move the %^$# to Canada?? That would solve their problems and ours.
Funny how the antis like to say that the streets will run with blood if OC/CC is permitted, then it NEVER happens. And with OC, if somebody sees someone carrying who is acting strangely/suspiciously/disorderly while armed, the proper authority can be brought to bear. CCW when you cannot for whatever reason show a bulge lest you give away your armed status and be arrested is worthless, as if you will be arrested if your armament is in any way evident, then why bother with the permit??
This ties in with the whole anti view that we who carry are compensating for inadequate male endowment. By some twisted logic of theirs, OCing is the equivlent of "indecent exposure". This is Freudian thinking and guess what antis? FREUD HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED in these matters.
No matter your sex or sexual preference, these days being a firearms owner - let alone someone who carries a weapon openly or concealed - is more likely to be a barrier rather than a boost to getting - uh- well you know. An "Obama/Biden pin and an invitation to a Vegan restaurant; and talk about how everybody needs to understand everybody else and then it will all be okay (or some such drivel) will get you into the sack with a sweetie MUCH more reliably than carrying the means to defend yourself (and your paramour) and voicing your belief in the things that this nation is founded upon. I don't know about you, but if I tried to say something I did not believe in, I would gag on my own words.
Personally I do not OC so that everyone will think I have a big weenie. I OC so that the sub-humans who prey upon people will know that they will not do it in my vicinity and escape unscathed.
And I OC to let folks like the OP know that it is the God-given RIGHT to me and all citizens to do so. If the OP does not like it, then I understand that there are several English-speaking nations he can move to, where he might feel more comfortable. Why don't the Antis just move the %^$# to Canada?? That would solve their problems and ours.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Well, I've only OCed on a regular basis in a social setting in Virginia, but it honestly doesn't seem to have any net effect on my ability to attract female attention (on a purely quantitive scale). If anything, it merely acts as a convenient pre-filter.
Well, I've only OCed on a regular basis in a social setting in Virginia, but it honestly doesn't seem to have any net effect on my ability to attract female attention (on a purely quantitive scale). If anything, it merely acts as a convenient pre-filter.
pistolerooo
New member
imported post
Did you understand the Supreme Court ruling on Heller. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms isa RIGHT and that I firmly believe. However, the ruling also stated that STATES COULD enact reasonable Laws for Firearms. Those laws create "May issue - Shall issue" Licensing, restrictions on WHO can posses firearms (Felons - Insane people and such) and where firearms can be carried....just to name a few allowed restrictions toOur Right to Keep and Bear Arms all of which are considered "Reasonable by the Supreme Court. Now what might be reasonable to me may not be reasonable to you and that is just the way it is.
My concern is those people that really don't need to be around guns, let alone carry them...And be honest we all know someone like this. I just want people to know what they're doing when carrying firearms. Can you argue that allowing an untrained person to carry a gun open or concealedis a good thing? Can they pull a pistol and hit what they shoot at? does the person understand the responsibility of using Deadly Force? Do they know the Laws? Carrying a pistol Concealed or OPENis NOT like having a pistolbeside your bed at home. Carryinga pistol comes with a LOT of responsibilityand even more so in anUrban Environment like, where I live, in Houston.
I understand the some of you don't want ANY restrictions on our 2nd amendment Rightsand I truly wish that could be. But I don't see it as being realistic without drastic action being taken on our part. We Gun owners scare people who would want to RULE us and rightly so.
Did you understand the Supreme Court ruling on Heller. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms isa RIGHT and that I firmly believe. However, the ruling also stated that STATES COULD enact reasonable Laws for Firearms. Those laws create "May issue - Shall issue" Licensing, restrictions on WHO can posses firearms (Felons - Insane people and such) and where firearms can be carried....just to name a few allowed restrictions toOur Right to Keep and Bear Arms all of which are considered "Reasonable by the Supreme Court. Now what might be reasonable to me may not be reasonable to you and that is just the way it is.
My concern is those people that really don't need to be around guns, let alone carry them...And be honest we all know someone like this. I just want people to know what they're doing when carrying firearms. Can you argue that allowing an untrained person to carry a gun open or concealedis a good thing? Can they pull a pistol and hit what they shoot at? does the person understand the responsibility of using Deadly Force? Do they know the Laws? Carrying a pistol Concealed or OPENis NOT like having a pistolbeside your bed at home. Carryinga pistol comes with a LOT of responsibilityand even more so in anUrban Environment like, where I live, in Houston.
I understand the some of you don't want ANY restrictions on our 2nd amendment Rightsand I truly wish that could be. But I don't see it as being realistic without drastic action being taken on our part. We Gun owners scare people who would want to RULE us and rightly so.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
Folks seem to use their personal opinions to determine which policies to support, rather than consult the policyalready provided by the Founders.I was guilty of it. I've met many who decent folks who do the same.
Rather than think up newly what the policy should be, they should just consult the principles and policy already provided. Its what I've been doing this last year or two. Works wonders. Why rack my brains for the answer, and pretend I have even the smallest hope of matching the wisdom ofFounders like Franklin and Jefferson?
Just look up what they wrote and apply that to the question.
Hawkflyer wrote:
You know Hawk, I think you are in the ballpark on this one.
Folks seem to use their personal opinions to determine which policies to support, rather than consult the policyalready provided by the Founders.I was guilty of it. I've met many who decent folks who do the same.
Rather than think up newly what the policy should be, they should just consult the principles and policy already provided. Its what I've been doing this last year or two. Works wonders. Why rack my brains for the answer, and pretend I have even the smallest hope of matching the wisdom ofFounders like Franklin and Jefferson?
Just look up what they wrote and apply that to the question.
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
pistolerooo wrote:
Considering the fact that most violent encounters occur within 7 yards? Considering the fact that a trained policeman's ability to "pull a pistol and hit what they shoot at is only 17.4% ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?_r=2&oref=slogin )? As one of the "chosen" who are capable of carrying in your locality, are you capable of producing better results than the next man?
"Do they know the Laws?"
In my opinion, none of your business. It is up to the individual to know the laws, or not know them if they see fit (this applies to everything they do in our society, not just guns).
"Carrying a pistol Concealed or OPENis NOT like having a pistolbeside your bed at home."
Why is that? Aren't you just as likely to hit someone in the next apartment or house over as you are to hit the bad guy? Please explain (and more importantly, explain why it matters).
"Carryinga pistol comes with a LOT of responsibilityand even more so in anUrban Environment like, where I live, in Houston."
It requires less responsibility than driving a deadly two ton projectile that you need to operate effectively on an every day basis or people WILL die.
This all boils down to the right of self defense. Just because you think that you (and certain others) are better fit than the rest of the civilian population to carry a weapon (even if it happens to be true, which it is not) does not preclude everyone else's intrinsic right to defend themselves and their family in the face of violence. Whether they are at home, or at the mall makes no difference.
pistolerooo wrote:
"Can they pull a pistol and hit what they shoot at?"
Considering the fact that most violent encounters occur within 7 yards? Considering the fact that a trained policeman's ability to "pull a pistol and hit what they shoot at is only 17.4% ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?_r=2&oref=slogin )? As one of the "chosen" who are capable of carrying in your locality, are you capable of producing better results than the next man?
"Do they know the Laws?"
In my opinion, none of your business. It is up to the individual to know the laws, or not know them if they see fit (this applies to everything they do in our society, not just guns).
"Carrying a pistol Concealed or OPENis NOT like having a pistolbeside your bed at home."
Why is that? Aren't you just as likely to hit someone in the next apartment or house over as you are to hit the bad guy? Please explain (and more importantly, explain why it matters).
"Carryinga pistol comes with a LOT of responsibilityand even more so in anUrban Environment like, where I live, in Houston."
It requires less responsibility than driving a deadly two ton projectile that you need to operate effectively on an every day basis or people WILL die.
This all boils down to the right of self defense. Just because you think that you (and certain others) are better fit than the rest of the civilian population to carry a weapon (even if it happens to be true, which it is not) does not preclude everyone else's intrinsic right to defend themselves and their family in the face of violence. Whether they are at home, or at the mall makes no difference.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
pistolerooo wrote:
The question is whether it is a good thing to allow government to get involved in it--a questionthat has been answered. Even in this country, where rights are supposedly cherished, government has repeatedly proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that it cannot be trusted with the power to make those decisions. It just can't
The Supreme Court saying inHeller that reasonable restrictions are OK is just another case of the government telling itself its OK to go where it has been prohibited. Of course the tent hem is lifted by the vague word "reasonable"--which really just means, "Whatever you want and think you can get away with as long as it isn't directly contradictory to something we expressly said."
pistolerooo wrote:
The question is not whether its a good thing or bad thing for the untrained or dangerous to carry.
The question is whether it is a good thing to allow government to get involved in it--a questionthat has been answered. Even in this country, where rights are supposedly cherished, government has repeatedly proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that it cannot be trusted with the power to make those decisions. It just can't
The Supreme Court saying inHeller that reasonable restrictions are OK is just another case of the government telling itself its OK to go where it has been prohibited. Of course the tent hem is lifted by the vague word "reasonable"--which really just means, "Whatever you want and think you can get away with as long as it isn't directly contradictory to something we expressly said."
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
How many of these low-number posters in this thread are the same person, I wonder.
How many of these low-number posters in this thread are the same person, I wonder.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
May-issue is, prima facie, violative of the 14th Amendment. Heller cannot protect it.
May-issue is, prima facie, violative of the 14th Amendment. Heller cannot protect it.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Yes I can argue that position if that is the law of the land. The language of TSA is SO clear that the supremes would not even take up the question of interpreting it because no fool could misread it, and it was political suicide for a president to appoint anyone who would actually read it correctly. It was possible for a lot of people to twist the meaning, but even they knew what it actually said.
So now a court comes along in Heller and says that TSA means just exactly what the pro rights movement has been saying for years. Then they throw a bone to the distortionists and say that reasonable regulations may be imposed.
Well sir I would submit that the words "... Shall not be infringed", have meaning and it is very clear what they mean. It means irrespective of your desire to require training, competency testing, permits, and anything else you might be thinking of trying, that the constitution does NOT recognize a cast system and self defense rights will not be apportioned like privileges to the selected few.
So you will have to excuse me if I do not buy into your "reasonable regulations" argument. Freedom is a messy business. If you can't stand a little disorder then you really need to find a different form of government to try. I would appreciate it if you would not try to impose it on the rest of us. It has been tried and that is messy too. Think about this, the TSA is not about self defense or hunting. That ought to really scare you.
Regards
Citizen wrote:
+1
Yes I can argue that position if that is the law of the land. The language of TSA is SO clear that the supremes would not even take up the question of interpreting it because no fool could misread it, and it was political suicide for a president to appoint anyone who would actually read it correctly. It was possible for a lot of people to twist the meaning, but even they knew what it actually said.
So now a court comes along in Heller and says that TSA means just exactly what the pro rights movement has been saying for years. Then they throw a bone to the distortionists and say that reasonable regulations may be imposed.
Well sir I would submit that the words "... Shall not be infringed", have meaning and it is very clear what they mean. It means irrespective of your desire to require training, competency testing, permits, and anything else you might be thinking of trying, that the constitution does NOT recognize a cast system and self defense rights will not be apportioned like privileges to the selected few.
So you will have to excuse me if I do not buy into your "reasonable regulations" argument. Freedom is a messy business. If you can't stand a little disorder then you really need to find a different form of government to try. I would appreciate it if you would not try to impose it on the rest of us. It has been tried and that is messy too. Think about this, the TSA is not about self defense or hunting. That ought to really scare you.
Regards
imported post
JoeSparky wrote:
LEO 1 - "DId you see where he went?"
LEO 2 - "No, hes wearing too much camo!"
LEO 1 - "Did that short round grayish haired shrub just move?"
[line]
On Topic: Do we have some safety statistics we can gather ? Some quick references to point out like the difference in LEO and LAC and some easy to read data on regions with pro 2A law as compared to say Kalifornia??
J
JoeSparky wrote:
lmao.. "... dispatch, could you please repeat that description .."JBURGII wrote:I think I figured it out.. carrying OC has nothing to do with my ego.. right now I will admit to being about 40 lbs overweight and not in any shape to run away.. I don't have a choice but to stand my ground and defend myself.
Waiting to hear my scanner pipe up with SFRWG (short fat redneck with gun) call.
Don't know about the redneck part but I my case it would be the Short Fat Gray Haired MustachedOLD Man WithA Gun (SFGHMOMWAG). So far it is ONLY 1 chin though!
It would be nice if I were ONLY 40lbs overweight....
JoeSparky
LEO 1 - "DId you see where he went?"
LEO 2 - "No, hes wearing too much camo!"
LEO 1 - "Did that short round grayish haired shrub just move?"
[line]
On Topic: Do we have some safety statistics we can gather ? Some quick references to point out like the difference in LEO and LAC and some easy to read data on regions with pro 2A law as compared to say Kalifornia??
J
nepawolf
Regular Member
imported post
First of all, I agree with taking her pic down. But only if will be replaced with a better pic of her. Second, I'm proud of my ego, because I'm that good. Third, CC is like lying. Fourth, in most states that recognize OC say that it is constitutionally protected unlike CC. Fifth, OC lets us dress how we feel like, instead of having to dress around it. Sixth, the RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Seventh, OCing lets the criminals know that there are legally armed citizens around and make that area safer. Eighth, OCing makes more people realize that it's ok and normal to carry a gun, and you don't have to bea nut job to own a gun. Ninth, better options on the sidearm and holster. Tenth, you can easily carry a full-size piece and ergo be more accurate and be safer with better placed shots. Eleventh, many criminal-minded people see the full size sidearm in a decent holster and assume you're another cop, making the area even safer. Twelfth, you're just jealous that you can't OC yet in Texas and that just in general, OCers are cooler. Thirteenth, you sound like an anti trolling around to stir up problems and if you are, move to Canada or some other place instead of trying to destroy our country and our freedoms.
First of all, I agree with taking her pic down. But only if will be replaced with a better pic of her. Second, I'm proud of my ego, because I'm that good. Third, CC is like lying. Fourth, in most states that recognize OC say that it is constitutionally protected unlike CC. Fifth, OC lets us dress how we feel like, instead of having to dress around it. Sixth, the RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Seventh, OCing lets the criminals know that there are legally armed citizens around and make that area safer. Eighth, OCing makes more people realize that it's ok and normal to carry a gun, and you don't have to bea nut job to own a gun. Ninth, better options on the sidearm and holster. Tenth, you can easily carry a full-size piece and ergo be more accurate and be safer with better placed shots. Eleventh, many criminal-minded people see the full size sidearm in a decent holster and assume you're another cop, making the area even safer. Twelfth, you're just jealous that you can't OC yet in Texas and that just in general, OCers are cooler. Thirteenth, you sound like an anti trolling around to stir up problems and if you are, move to Canada or some other place instead of trying to destroy our country and our freedoms.
JoeSparky
Centurion
imported post
pistolerooo wrote:
Having to ASK PERMISSION to exercise a RIGHT is not a right!
Ask Rosa Parks about her right to ride in the FRONT of the BUS!
JoeSparky!
pistolerooo wrote:
Having to ASK PERMISSION to exercise a RIGHT is not a right!
Ask Rosa Parks about her right to ride in the FRONT of the BUS!
JoeSparky!
Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
imported post
I say leave her picture up, or replace it with one of her in a bikini and a gun belt.
I say leave her picture up, or replace it with one of her in a bikini and a gun belt.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
JBURGII wrote:
JBURGII wrote:
God, I'm laughing so hard I can't breathe.