"OCers have no common sense"

Shorts · Jan 2, 2009

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Shorts wrote:

So, running in and yelling "@#$% BUSH!" would be within your rights, as would yelling "Fire!" if there is a fire, or if there is not assuming you A: didn't cause a stampede which killed anybody and B: the theater owner hired you to do so.

In fact, if you did cause a stampede, you wouldn't be liable for "exceeding" your "limited" "right to free speech", you would be liable for causing people to be injured, something quite unrelated to and unprotected by "free speech".

Click to expand...

This made a lot of sense to me. Are there any other consequences that can be applied? I got accused of having a 'false dichotomy' once :uhoh:

Click to expand...

Sure, if you yelled "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you have committed a tort against the patrons and the theater operator, who are all going to want to be reimbursed for ticket price/lost earnings. You are liable for this.

What false dilemma have you been accused of manufacturing?

I said: [snip]...Or a right is never expressed because of threat of infringement from authority.

A poster replied:
False dichotomy. There are more than two options here, it's not as if the only options available are not carrying openly at all or carrying openly at a kid's soccer game.

This is buried in a little thread here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=327765

If you guys check it out, please correct me where I'm wrong. I don't want incorrect info to stand. I hope I did not overstep bounds by posting links and such. Overall, I hope I did not do any damage :?

Hawkflyer · Jan 2, 2009

imported post

A lot of us have already had discussions with THR and TFL forum members. Some of them are open to the concept that OC is a right and CC is a privilege. Most of them do not like the attention that OC brings so they do not like it and they do not support others doing it. They have the idea that OC will turn people against the Firearms rights movement.

What they fail to see is that people are already turned off to the firearms right movement and most if not all of those people are not going to change their view because they cannot see the firearms. The strident CCers like the fact that they have a special privilege and they do not like the fact that people can and do carry without all the paperwork and expense. That reduces the special class that CCers think exists.

I carry indifferently as to concealment, and a I think a a lot of people here do. I see no conflict between these to mode of carry, and I think that people who feel the need to bash one type of carry over the others are not thinking it through.

Regards

marshaul · Jan 2, 2009

imported post

While on the one hand I see the point he is driving at, on the other hand I fail to see (or refuse to recognize) the significance of "a kids soccer game (omg!!!11! :shock

".

Being that this is so, any argument made in the context of a soccer game must also apply to general circumstances.

If this is so, then the argument boils down essentially to "OC scares people and makes them hate guns. CC instead".

This argument is patently fail.

Shorts · Jan 2, 2009

imported post

I definitely agree.

From my perspective, OCers have come to accept that you cannot please everybody, which is where CCers are often stuck ("why offend when you can hide it?"). There will be people that will be offended at OC, but there are others who will be curious, indifferent or approving.

If this is so, then the argument boils down essentially to "OC scares people and makes them hate guns. CC instead".

Yup, that's exactly it.

Hawkflyer · Jan 2, 2009

imported post

Frankly I find CC to be a very dishonest carry method as compared to OC. If you think about it the idea is to carry in such a way that the weapon can be sprung on someone by surprise. This is even recognized in the code. With OC everyone knows you are armed. There is no attempt to portray yourself as something you are not. Now lets just think for a moment about the CC only argument.

If for any reason their weapon is spotted by one of these easily frightened people. The logical assumption is that there is criminal activity afoot. Why? BECAUSE CRIMINALS ALWAYS hide their firearms until they SURPRISE you with them. ONLY GOOD GUYS Carry OC. That would be honest citizens, police, guards, and others of like character.

Regards

GumiBear · Jan 3, 2009

imported post

Shorts wrote:

...If you guys check it out, please correct me where I'm wrong. I don't want incorrect info to stand. I hope I did not overstep bounds by posting links and such. Overall, I hope I did not do any damage :?

I read through the posts and Iappreciate how you stood your ground and called out the posterswith a "holier than thou" mentality. Good job and keep it up!:celebrate

Hcidem · Jan 3, 2009

imported post

marshaul wrote:

...
If this is so, then the argument boils down essentially to "OC scares people and makes them hate guns. CC instead".

This argument is patently fail.

At least the boiled-down version of the argument you spelled out would be an honest point-of-view. It doesn't exonerate its faulty logic in any way, but it remains an honest statement.

Shorts · Jan 3, 2009

imported post

GumiBear wrote:

Shorts wrote:

...If you guys check it out, please correct me where I'm wrong. I don't want incorrect info to stand. I hope I did not overstep bounds by posting links and such. Overall, I hope I did not do any damage :?

Click to expand...

I read through the posts and Iappreciate how you stood your ground and called out the posterswith a "holier than thou" mentality. Good job and keep it up!:celebrate

Thanks. I try to do it diplomatically because I don't want to alienate. Its hard to do and I think I've walked the edge. Now, jumping over the edge and just ranting would be so much easier.:lol:

ChickenFarmer · Jan 3, 2009

imported post

I still argue anytime someone uses the "child" argument. . . Aren't your children worth protecting? Since I can't get a CCW, I OC. And I have not known a single kid to run away in panic about my gun...it is always the parents.

Children should not be taught to FEAR guns, they should be taught to respect them!

Shorts wrote:

GumiBear wrote:

Shorts wrote:

...If you guys check it out, please correct me where I'm wrong. I don't want incorrect info to stand. I hope I did not overstep bounds by posting links and such. Overall, I hope I did not do any damage :?

Click to expand...

I read through the posts and Iappreciate how you stood your ground and called out the posterswith a "holier than thou" mentality. Good job and keep it up!:celebrate

Click to expand...

Thanks. I try to do it diplomatically because I don't want to alienate. Its hard to do and I think I've walked the edge. Now, jumping over the edge and just ranting would be so much easier.:lol:

Shorts · Jan 3, 2009

imported post

I agree. I don't remember being scared of guns when I was a kid. A .22lr was there next to the tv in the living room, always. That's where it stayed. That's where dad put it to take care of the scavengers that weren't suppose to be in the yard with our dogs or cats. We didn't touch it. Never felt compelled to really (before we were taught and given the green light). If something needed shooting, we let Dad know and he'd follow with it. The shotguns and deer rifles were in Dad's closet and those were brought out by Dad for hunting trips or just the general looksee. Again, no real compulsion or fear of them.

We watched John Wayne movies and lots of old westerns. Watched Wyatt Earp and tons of shootouts. I watched terrible 80s movies with gangs and drugs. Let's not forget Rambo...Schwartenegger...Don Johnson... :dude:

The fear is the parent's fear.

ChickenFarmer wrote:

I still argue anytime someone uses the "child" argument. . . Aren't your children worth protecting? Since I can't get a CCW, I OC. And I have not known a single kid to run away in panic about my gun...it is always the parents.

Children should not be taught to FEAR guns, they should be taught to respect them!

Hawkflyer · Jan 3, 2009

imported post

Shorts wrote:

I agree. I don't remember being scared of guns when I was a kid. A .22lr was there next to the tv in the living room, always. That's where it stayed. That's where dad put it to take care of the scavengers that weren't suppose to be in the yard with our dogs or cats. We didn't touch it. Never felt compelled to really (before we were taught and given the green light). If something needed shooting, we let Dad know and he'd follow with it. The shotguns and deer rifles were in Dad's closet and those were brought out by Dad for hunting trips or just the general looksee. Again, no real compulsion or fear of them.

We watched John Wayne movies and lots of old westerns. Watched Wyatt Earp and tons of shootouts. I watched terrible 80s movies with gangs and drugs. Let's not forget Rambo...Schwartenegger...Don Johnson... :dude:

The fear is the parent's fear.

SNIP...

VERY well said. I am not certain why you think you need any of us.

Wen I was growing up my Father was in Law Enforcement. In fact he was an FBI agent, and he collected firearms. This was actually a natural offshoot of his work, but he had grown up around them as well. The first time I can remember shooting was when I was three. It was a 12 gauge shotgun and my Dad held the weight of the gun, and I stood behind it and "aimed" it at a clay pigeon leaning against a backstop. Needless to say it knocked me A.. over tin cup.

But my point is that there were literally hundreds of Firearms in the house. Both my brother and I knew that they were not toys and that we were not to handle them without Mom or Dad being there. Dad had a loaded hand gun all the time, and so did Mom. Both my brother and I knew where they were, what they were for, and not to touch them.

Parentage matters. Today most people let the schools or the nanny do the parenting for them and we can see the results.

Regards

Shorts · Jan 3, 2009

imported post

I am not certain why you think you need any of us.

I like being amongst friends, seeking shelter from the storms. Reminds me of home.

leVieux · Jan 4, 2009

imported post

If we must worry whether someone may be offended, then it is nota RIGHT.

If you are in Texas, you can O.C. a shotgun or rifle, just not a handgun.

One hundred years ago, or so, almosteveryone carried, without restriction. Even in England, Germany, Mexico, New York, etc. Then someone got the idea that if one C.C.'ed, they may be up to no good. Their solution was to outlaw C.C. It took a long time for us to realize that all prohibiting C.C. did was to disarm potential victims.

There have always been "disarmers", who seek to remove all tools of self-defense. These assured that this was to enhance "public safety", when their real aim was to control the citizenry of that particular country. Hitler and Stalin were big gun-controllers.

Somehow, these two groups partially blended politically to result in the unreasonable and unconstitutional restrictions now found in places like New Jersey and California. This has progressed to the point of ridiculousness inEngland, Japan, and Australia. Tis was fostered in the U.S.A. by revisionist jurists, whose opinions restricting our Second Ammendment rights read like something from Alice in Wonderland and defy retrospective logic.

The turning point came several years ago when Florida passed its sentinel "shall-issue" CCW permit law. Soon, everyone was able to see that weapons in the hands of honest citizens DECREASED violent crime by inhibiting criminals. Now, most states have some form of permitted defensive weapon carry provision, and the results have been decreasing violent crime.

Honest scientific studies have mostly had this observation and serve to discredit the gun-banners.

The United States has been distinguished among nations by its Second Ammendment, which seemingly preserves the RIGHTS of all citizens to "keep and bear arms". Our Nation has prospered as no other, partly because of our freedoms like the Second Ammendment.

Now, our rights are under attack like never before. What is needed is to remove all restrictions on the abilities of honest citizens to carry normal weapons in whatever manner they see fit.

Here in "Chocolate City", as our mayor refers to the City of New Oreans, our officials and police are enforcing thier opinions, rather than the LAW and the State Constitution. We hear the same from Phladelphia and other areas. This is a POLICE ANARCHY and should be resisted by any and all legalmeans.

Some folks are bravely O.C.'ing, legally, and defying this POLICE ANARCHY. We owe these brave citizens our respect and gratitude.

leVieux Chocolate City, LA

Task Force 16 · Jan 4, 2009

imported post

leVieux wrote:

If we must worry whether someone may be offended, then it is nota RIGHT.

If you are in Texas, you can O.C. a shotgun or rifle, just not a handgun.

One hundred years ago, or so, almosteveryone carried, without restriction. Even in England, Germany, Mexico, New York, etc. Then someone got the idea that if one C.C.'ed, they may be up to no good. Their solution was to outlaw C.C. It took a long time for us to realize that all prohibiting C.C. did was to disarm potential victims.

There have always been "disarmers", who seek to remove all tools of self-defense. These assured that this was to enhance "public safety", when their real aim was to control the citizenry of that particular country. Hitler and Stalin were big gun-controllers.

Somehow, these two groups partially blended politically to result in the unreasonable and unconstitutional restrictions now found in places like New Jersey and California. This has progressed to the point of ridiculousness inEngland, Japan, and Australia. Tis was fostered in the U.S.A. by revisionist jurists, whose opinions restricting our Second Ammendment rights read like something from Alice in Wonderland and defy retrospective logic.

The turning point came several years ago when Florida passed its sentinel "shall-issue" CCW permit law. Soon, everyone was able to see that weapons in the hands of honest citizens DECREASED violent crime by inhibiting criminals. Now, most states have some form of permitted defensive weapon carry provision, and the results have been decreasing violent crime.

Honest scientific studies have mostly had this observation and serve to discredit the gun-banners.

The United States has been distinguished among nations by its Second Ammendment, which seemingly preserves the RIGHTS of all citizens to "keep and bear arms". Our Nation has prospered as no other, partly because of our freedoms like the Second Ammendment.

Now, our rights are under attack like never before. What is needed is to remove all restrictions on the abilities of honest citizens to carry normal weapons in whatever manner they see fit.

Here in "Chocolate City", as our mayor refers to the City of New Oreans, our officials and police are enforcing thier opinions, rather than the LAW and the State Constitution. We hear the same from Phladelphia and other areas. This is a POLICE ANARCHY and should be resisted by any and all legalmeans.

Some folks are bravely O.C.'ing, legally, and defying this POLICE ANARCHY. We owe these brave citizens our respect and gratitude.

leVieux Chocolate City, LA

Exellent response. I'd like to add to that.

The title of this topic is "OC'ers have no common sense". Back in the days of the "Old Wild Wild West" almost everyone OC'd. During this period people did very well without a nanny government telling them how or what to do. Nor did they need (or want) a nanny government doing for them what they could do for themselves.And as leVieux points out, they prospered. If all those OC'ers didn't have common sense, how the heck did they survive as well as they did?

Who were the people that first settled the Old West anyway? They were people that were independant and resourceful. They had the fortitude to overcome the challenges of venturing into a land where assistance or supportwas going to be little or none. If any of these people lacked common sense their odds of survival was slim.

To say that OC'ers today don't have common sense is, to me, merely a means of demeaning those that choose to do so. Could there be a few that lack it? Certainly. That is true of any group of people, includung CC'ers. But I think that those that OC may still have some of that fortitude that our pioneer ancestors had. We are willing to brave the ridicule of others for not conforming to the excepted norm of modern society.We are willing to defy those LEO's that may be on egotistical power trips. We are willing to possibly make our selves the first target of a determened BG. We carry our firearms openly to let anyone that sees them that we are not just another helpless sheep.

Sometimes common sense dictates that we be daring and/or defiant. That we take risk for our beliefs. Perhaps those that attempt to belittle OC'ers are trying to project their own lackof fortitude,or maybe common sense, to understand this.

Shorts · Jan 4, 2009

imported post

Excellent thoughts gentlemen

leVieux · Jan 4, 2009

imported post

There is a name for citizens like Mark, who may seem eccentric to some; but, are willing to take personal risks to preserve their and others' basic rightsand do this in the face ofcorrupt police presence and an even more corrupt national media.

That name is PATRIOT. We need to respect and thank our few bravePATRIOTS.

Other PATRIOTS are in the trenches, trying to prevent or undo the brainwashing of our children by the ultraleftist national "education" establishment.

We have slept too long and the socialist big government wolf is at our door. We must support our PATRIOTS while we still can.

leVieux

cynicist · Jan 4, 2009

imported post

OCers "abuse the right"

A right cannot be "abused." It is a right, it is not given, it is a right because it is.

Even the phrase "constitutional right" is a misnomer, because it implies the constitution GIVES those rights, whereas it merely acknowledges them to be fundamental human rights. (What the courts say is another matter.)

The way I see it, OCers are to the 2A what flagburners are to the First. Offensive to some, of course, but if you don't stick up for rights on everything, the line that "you gotta draw" will get closer and closer towards you.
In the past hundred or so years we've gone from OC being just about unversally legal to the gov't trying to ban functional guns inside the house in DC. Fight them for every inch of ground, that way they don't intrude on you.

JBURGII · Jan 4, 2009

imported post

SNIPed from TFL:

Click to expand...

In this case, she was openly carrying around a group of children at a game. This isnt illegal, but I would say it is suspicious behavior. How many people do you see openly carrying weapons around groups of children? If my children were in that game, then I would be very concerned.

The Sheriff should have taken the woman aside and questioned her about this behavior. Checked her identification and ran her for warrants. Then taken the weapon away upon further investigation. When the investigation was completed, then the weapon should have been provided back to her.

There are many good reasons to perform a Terry stop in this situation. There are very few times, if any, that the police have ever seen someone openly carrying a pistol at a game full of children. There have been incidents in the past which involved school shootings. She was acting in a suspicious manner by openly carrying the pistol.

Just how many layers of FAIL can you peel out of this? Can we count the charges now against the Sheriff in question? I am convinced OCers are the ONLY ones with common sense.. this isn't a blanket statement.. not all who CC are closed minded, I don't want to be diametrically opposed.. it is the statement above that concerns me. These are the 'Papers Please Party' members.. ack

J

Task Force 16 · Jan 4, 2009

imported post

JBURGII wrote:

SNIPed from TFL:

Click to expand...

In this case, she was openly carrying around a group of children at a game. This isnt illegal, but I would say it is suspicious behavior. How many people do you see openly carrying weapons around groups of children? If my children were in that game, then I would be very concerned.

The Sheriff should have taken the woman aside and questioned her about this behavior. Checked her identification and ran her for warrants. Then taken the weapon away upon further investigation. When the investigation was completed, then the weapon should have been provided back to her.

There are many good reasons to perform a Terry stop in this situation. There are very few times, if any, that the police have ever seen someone openly carrying a pistol at a game full of children. There have been incidents in the past which involved school shootings. She was acting in a suspicious manner by openly carrying the pistol.

Click to expand...

Just how many layers of FAIL can you peel out of this? Can we count the charges now against the Sheriff in question? I am convinced OCers are the ONLY ones with common sense.. this isn't a blanket statement.. not all who CC are closed minded, I don't want to be diametrically opposed.. it is the statement above that concerns me. These are the 'Papers Please Party' members.. ack

J

Failure #1 The poster appearently is unaware that those that carried out the school shootings didn't stand around for awhile with their guns openly displayed before they open fired.

Failure #2 IIRC the sheriff wasn't even at the soccer game to observe whither the woman was acting suspecious.

Failure #3 Police haven't seen too many parents OC at soccer games becasue there aren't that many parents that know it's legal to do so.

Failure #4 (I take it this snip is from a CC only forum) Would the poster be concerned about someone he/she didn't know CC? How would the poster know how many people might be at any childrens games are attended by CC'ers.

Failure #5 What's the difgference between OC and CC around kids. oh, that's right. If they see law abiding people carrying guns they might get the idea that guns aren't as bad as they've been told.

OK, I don't want to hog it all. Anyone else want to point out a few more failures here? I know I didn't get em all.

Hawkflyer · Jan 5, 2009

imported post

JBURGII wrote:

SNIPed from TFL:

Click to expand...

In this case, she was openly carrying around a group of children at a game. This isnt illegal, but I would say it is suspicious behavior. How many people do you see openly carrying weapons around groups of children? If my children were in that game, then I would be very concerned.
SNIP...

Click to expand...

Was the Sheriff armed? Looks suspicious to me openly carrying a sidearm around all those children.

"OCers have no common sense"

Lone Star Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Lone Star Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Lone Star Veteran

Regular Member

Lone Star Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Lone Star Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Lone Star Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member