Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Atlantic Magazine: Carrying guns to protests counterproductive, but not dangerous

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Very clear thinking on what many or most think is a "liberal" news source, whatever "liberal" means these days
    --

    http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/..._really_da.php

    SNIP

    I think carrying guns to protests is entirely counterproductive. . . . But the hysteria about them has been even more ludicrous. Numerous people claim to believe that this makes it likely, even certain, that someone will shoot at the president. This is very silly, because the president is not anywhere most of the gun-toting protesters, who have showed up at all sorts of events. It is, I suppose, more plausible to believe that they might take a shot at someone else. But not very plausible: the rate of crime associated with legal gun possession or carrying seems to be very low. Guns, it turn out, do not turn ordinary people into murderers. They make murderers more effective.

    So perhaps unsurprisingly, when offered the opportunity to put some money down on the proposition that one of these firearms is soon going to be discharged at someone, they all decline.



  2. #2
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    My biggest fear is that one of the 'anti's' will attempt to disarm somebody. THAT could get ugly.

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    My biggest fear is that one of the 'anti's' will attempt to disarm somebody. THAT could get ugly.
    I might worry that a criminal could try that, but not an anti... most of them are afraid of guns, or afraid that they can't safely handle a gun, so I doubt they would even want to hold one, much less go grabbing for one in a crowd.

    TFred

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    Since my little world, and I mean that sincerely, only has Concealed Carry, I would like to better understand if members here prefer Open Carry, or is Open Carry a legal avenue to have local goverments lean to Concealed Carry for them in the future. I have read that Open Carry is sometimes pursued because that is what the particular state government law allows, but members want to conceal. The question is both for me to understand you OCers better, and I wonder if, what if, these people carrying at political events were carrying concealed would it be so controversial since nobody would know. Please fill me and other CCers here in so we can be well informed.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Governments don't 'allow' rights. Governments recognized rights or deny them. Concealed Carry is a contrivance of state government per 10th Amendmentrequiring permit/license for a 'fee'. This 'fee' is for the permit to conceal... not to 'carry'. The statists would have the public believe otherwise.

    Free exercise of a pre-existing right requires no permit/license or other 'allowance'. Such rights would exist if there were no government at all. CC wasn't even a recognized mode of carry in Arizona until 1994. Open Carry wasn't even a term... You were either heeled or not. There was no question who was with the exception of criminals who routinely conceal anyway.

    Quote: "I would like to better understand if members here prefer Open Carry, or is Open Carry a legal avenue to have local goverments lean to Concealed Carry for them in the future."

    This is Open Carry Dot Org (OCDO)... you're putting the chicken before the egg. We bear arms openly per the 2nd Amendment. 'Concealed' is a government contrivance. You seem not to understand that lawfully bearing arms does not require... should never require, government 'permission'. I don't think you can conceptualize just 'wearing a sidearm' or slinging a longarm without having to think much about it. It's a RIGHT... like any other right. You just do it.

    All this other nonsense is just 'clutter'... and FUDDishness. Bottom line...: Right to carry arms recognized... everywhere. 'The "Shall not be infringed" part'. Respect for private property still paramount.


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    I open carry proudly.

    I conceal carry grudgingly. (Sometimes you have to in NY)

    I only vacation in open carry states, and open carry in those states, even though I have non-resident CCWs in those same states.

    I avoid CC only states, even the states I have CCWs for.

    Locally, I prefer to take my family on outdoor recreation outings on land I can OC, even though I may encounter objections, even though I could legally CC and avoid any scrutiny whatsoever.

    I live in a county in New York that allows OC, andthat wasamong the main reasons I chose to live here !

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Wheelgun,

    Forgive me I am from KS and am not familiar with New York gun laws. The maps section http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.htmlon opencarry.org says NY is a Non Permissive Open Carry State.

    Friendly question do some counties in NY allow open carry?

    Have a great week,

    Marine0300



  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    My biggest fear is that one of the 'anti's' will attempt to disarm somebody. THAT could get ugly.
    Yeah, my wife has seen some of the antis at out at public events and thinks they are inherently unstablepeople.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    My biggest fear is that one of the 'anti's' will attempt to disarm somebody. THAT could get ugly.
    Yeah, my wife has seen some of the antis at out at public events and thinks they are inherently unstablepeople.
    Your wife is an astute observer. My thoughts exactly.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Governments don't 'allow' rights. Governments recognized rights or deny them. Concealed Carry is a contrivance of state government per 10th Amendmentrequiring permit/license for a 'fee'. This 'fee' is for the permit to conceal... not to 'carry'. The statists would have the public believe otherwise.

    Free exercise of a pre-existing right requires no permit/license or other 'allowance'. Such rights would exist if there were no government at all. CC wasn't even a recognized mode of carry in Arizona until 1994. Open Carry wasn't even a term... You were either heeled or not. There was no question who was with the exception of criminals who routinely conceal anyway.

    Quote: "I would like to better understand if members here prefer Open Carry, or is Open Carry a legal avenue to have local goverments lean to Concealed Carry for them in the future."

    This is Open Carry Dot Org (OCDO)... you're putting the chicken before the egg. We bear arms openly per the 2nd Amendment. 'Concealed' is a government contrivance. You seem not to understand that lawfully bearing arms does not require... should never require, government 'permission'. I don't think you can conceptualize just 'wearing a sidearm' or slinging a longarm without having to think much about it. It's a RIGHT... like any other right. You just do it.

    All this other nonsense is just 'clutter'... and FUDDishness. Bottom line...: Right to carry arms recognized... everywhere. 'The "Shall not be infringed" part'. Respect for private property still paramount.
    Yes, you are correct, I, of all people, have no understanding of law. Let's try it this way to see if you, or someone else, can be less defensive and provide a simple answer.

    Do you prefer Open Carry or Concealed Carry and why?

    Please, in simple terms of purely mechanical or safety reasons.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    My biggest fear is that one of the 'anti's' will attempt to disarm somebody. THAT could get ugly.
    Yeah, my wife has seen some of the antis at out at public events and thinks they are inherently unstablepeople.
    Wow, what a discussion for the 70th annivesary of the outbreak of WWII in Europe!

    Yeah I have seen antis hectoring OCers and a couple times been spoken to like a schoolchild, very insultingly by a shopkeeper who (wagging her finger in my face) told me I was "very frightening and intimidating". Now if that were true, she wouldn't be that far up in my face now, would she? The motivation was of course to publicly force me to make a choice: Appear as an immature schoolboy who wore a cap-pistol to school and was being told to go home and put it away; OR to provoke me to escalate the argument so as to make me look like the rash, rude, dangerous rube we are all supposed to be in the World According to Brady. My choice? I drew. Yes, I drew a hankie from my pocket, wiped my face and told her she did not need to spit on me while she was yelling. Then I left. I could go on but I think most folks here know exactly what I am talking about. :?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    milkmanjoe wrote:
    I would like to better understand if members here prefer Open Carry, or is Open Carry a legal avenue to have local goverments lean to Concealed Carry for them in the future.
    I am in a "Open-Carry Only" state, I choose toO-C because that is all that I got, I do not use my right to O-C asa vehicleto try andget aConcealed-Carry bill passed through the legislature.
    I would like the option to Carry-Concealed because it is awfully difficult to O-C when it is snowing 3"-4" per hour and way below freezing and you're wearing a parka that would cover your gunbelt. Us Wisconsin people are pushing for VT/AK style carry! if you are legal to own a firearm, carry it any way you can with no mandatory training or permits required. We have a gubernatorial candidate that is also pursuing that option too.

    I am not willing to trade my right to O-C for C-C, I do not O-C to make a point, or to be an activist. I open-carry becauseI can, it is either carry it openly on my side, ordo not carry at all, I absolutely refuse to go about my life relying on other people to defend me. I lived in a C-C only state, it sucked trying to make sure everything was hidden at all times, I do not want to endure that again!

    The current governor of WI, veto'd legislation that would have provided a concealed option. He pressured people that originally signed the bill to change their minds during the vote to overirde his veto. When questioned about this at a public appearance he stated "if you want to carry a gun, wear it in your hip where everyone can see it" with so much news happening in WI with illegal arrests of O-C'ers, and out attorneyt general issueing a memo that O-C is fully legal and to quit charging people with Disorderly conduct when they exercise their 2A rights,the Governorthen vowed to get O-C made illegal in many places by repealing the state preemption statute during his term.
    A few short months later, he announced he will not be running for reelection.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    milkmanjoe wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Governments don't 'allow' rights. Governments recognized rights or deny them. Concealed Carry is a contrivance of state government per 10th Amendmentrequiring permit/license for a 'fee'. This 'fee' is for the permit to conceal... not to 'carry'. The statists would have the public believe otherwise.

    Free exercise of a pre-existing right requires no permit/license or other 'allowance'. Such rights would exist if there were no government at all. CC wasn't even a recognized mode of carry in Arizona until 1994. Open Carry wasn't even a term... You were either heeled or not. There was no question who was with the exception of criminals who routinely conceal anyway.

    Quote: "I would like to better understand if members here prefer Open Carry, or is Open Carry a legal avenue to have local goverments lean to Concealed Carry for them in the future."

    This is Open Carry Dot Org (OCDO)... you're putting the chicken before the egg. We bear arms openly per the 2nd Amendment. 'Concealed' is a government contrivance. You seem not to understand that lawfully bearing arms does not require... should never require, government 'permission'. I don't think you can conceptualize just 'wearing a sidearm' or slinging a longarm without having to think much about it. It's a RIGHT... like any other right. You just do it.

    All this other nonsense is just 'clutter'... and FUDDishness. Bottom line...: Right to carry arms recognized... everywhere. 'The "Shall not be infringed" part'. Respect for private property still paramount.
    Yes, you are correct, I, of all people, have no understanding of law. Let's try it this way to see if you, or someone else, can be less defensive and provide a simple answer.

    Do you prefer Open Carry or Concealed Carry and why?

    Please, in simple terms of purely mechanical or safety reasons.
    That was not your question. There is an entire thread on why Open Carry. Again... this forum is OCDO. It's fairly simple... even for FUDD's. (Maybe?) Bearing arms is a right. Open or concealed is only a mode of doing so. Concealed generally requires the government contrivance of permission. Most of us would prefer that contrivance discontinued as unconstitutional. 'Shall not be impaired' is clear enough language regardless of mode. Open carry is obvious... accessability is immediateand as a visible deterrent.

    Otherewise one may be mistaken for one of the sheep. The tactical element of surprise is always with the aggressor. This isn't rocket science. AGAIN... this is OCDO, not CCDO or whatever.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Impaired?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    I am in a "Open-Carry Only" state, I choose toO-C because that is all that I got, I do not use my right to O-C asa vehicleto try andget aConcealed-Carry bill passed through the legislature.
    I would like the option to Carry-Concealed because it is awfully difficult to O-C when it is snowing 3"-4" per hour and way below freezing and you're wearing a parka that would cover your gunbelt. Us Wisconsin people are pushing for VT/AK style carry! if you are legal to own a firearm, carry it any way you can with no mandatory training or permits required. We have a gubernatorial candidate that is also pursuing that option too.

    I am not willing to trade my right to O-C for C-C, I do not O-C to make a point, or to be an activist. I open-carry becauseI can, it is either carry it openly on my side, ordo not carry at all, I absolutely refuse to go about my life relying on other people to defend me. I lived in a C-C only state, it sucked trying to make sure everything was hidden at all times, I do not want to endure that again!

    The current governor of WI, veto'd legislation that would have provided a concealed option. He pressured people that originally signed the bill to change their minds during the vote to overirde his veto. When questioned about this at a public appearance he stated "if you want to carry a gun, wear it in your hip where everyone can see it" with so much news happening in WI with illegal arrests of O-C'ers, and out attorneyt general issueing a memo that O-C is fully legal and to quit charging people with Disorderly conduct when they exercise their 2A rights,the Governorthen vowed to get O-C made illegal in many places by repealing the state preemption statute during his term.
    A few short months later, he announced he will not be running for reelection
    .

    Thank You.......all I am seeking is enlightenment, not lectures, and you have helped.

    More of this would be great for guys like me who visit here and make posts. We are all pro-gunners in our own way. To state it, I am for both Open and Concealed Carry.

    Sometimes I don't post cause I don't feel I understand well enough, and sometimes I post and get attacked, which is counter productive. I surely have alot more to offer than to take, and would appreciate to be treated that way.

    Once again, thanks for helping me understand a piece of the world of carrying a firearm I don't get to experience.






















  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    My biggest fear is that one of the 'anti's' will attempt to disarm somebody. THAT could get ugly.
    I might worry that a criminal could try that, but not an anti... most of them are afraid of guns, or afraid that they can't safely handle a gun, so I doubt they would even want to hold one, much less go grabbing for one in a crowd.

    TFred
    some of the more rabid Obama democrat supporters have stated that if they see someone carrying a gun in the open, that they would take it. Now it might be all bluster, but I wouldn't put it past one or two of them to try in a group. Personally, I hope it is never tried but if they did it would be their fault they died.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Yeah, having a mob try to snatch your weapon is an action that would reasonably cause you to fear for your life, thereby justifying deadly force. I doubt there is an anti out there who would actually be stupid enough to try, but one never knows, do one?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    My biggest fear is that one of the 'anti's' will attempt to disarm somebody. THAT could get ugly.
    I might worry that a criminal could try that, but not an anti... most of them are afraid of guns, or afraid that they can't safely handle a gun, so I doubt they would even want to hold one, much less go grabbing for one in a crowd.

    TFred
    some of the more rabid Obama democrat supporters have stated that if they see someone carrying a gun in the open, that they would take it. Now it might be all bluster, but I wouldn't put it past one or two of them to try in a group. Personally, I hope it is never tried but if they did it would be their fault they died.
    The carrier would most likely have to shoot them. Perhaps that's what they want. I can see no other possible outcome. If the carrier were to 'give up' his/her weapon, there's no telling what some nutcase would attempt.The carrier would have todefendthemselves and the weapon responsibly. Some of these Obamabots are emotional nutcases(as has been demonstrated) given to those typesof irrational theatrics.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    DKSuddeth wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    My biggest fear is that one of the 'anti's' will attempt to disarm somebody. THAT could get ugly.
    I might worry that a criminal could try that, but not an anti... most of them are afraid of guns, or afraid that they can't safely handle a gun, so I doubt they would even want to hold one, much less go grabbing for one in a crowd.

    TFred
    some of the more rabid Obama democrat supporters have stated that if they see someone carrying a gun in the open, that they would take it. Now it might be all bluster, but I wouldn't put it past one or two of them to try in a group. Personally, I hope it is never tried but if they did it would be their fault they died.
    The carrier would most likely have to shoot them. Perhaps that's what they want. I can see no other possible outcome. If the carrier were to 'give up' his/her weapon, there's no telling what some nutcase would attempt.The carrier would have todefendthemselves and the weapon responsibly. Some of these Obamabots are emotional nutcases (as has been demonstrated) given to those typesof irrational theatrics.
    I didn't specifically write about a situation like this, but it goes back to would concealed carry be a better idea with all these nutcases around? Understood about the right to Open Carry, but...... these nutcases someday will grab a weapon, and I would not be surprised if someday one of them was put up to it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    I'm not a big fan of being intimidated... directly or possibly. If anyone acts up toward an open carrier...(attempting to take the weapon) I expectthe perpetrator(s)toreap the immediateconsequences.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    I'm not a big fan of being intimidated... directly or possibly. If anyone acts up toward an open carrier... (attempting to take the weapon) I expectthe perpetrator(s)toreap the immediateconsequences.
    Agreed, and within rights.... do you think that someday the type of holster might play a part? not in the right to carry, but in avoiding lawsuits if a BG grabbed the weapon of a OCer and harmed others? I rarely use a full retention holster, but, I have a concealed weapon. If, someday, I was to travel to an OC state, I can only guess that investing in a retention holster would bewise. I can hardly blame a flake for grabbing a gun I dangled in front of him, and nobody in this world is good enough to have 360 degree vision to always see it coming.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellsworth, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    So far I have primarily OCed only at events and in my rural neighborhood, in part because I do not have a retention holster so for me yes investing in a good quality holster like a Black Hawk Serpa is part of the plan before I OC regularly.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    I use your basic thunb-break for retention in all my holsters (except the G-Code). That and the "hi-ride" mode I prefer means someone trying a gun-grab would have to put their arm and hand in an awkward position, conducive to breaking if one knows the right moves. And there are carbon-fiber holsters with even more agressive retention, such as the one used by the OCer in PA which he had to help the police figure out how to get the wepon out.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    I carry cross draw at 10 O'Clock (butt reversed). Thumb break strap added to a Bianchi UM-84, altho I could re-install the flap. At any rate... they'd have to reach for it from within my vision. That could get 'em thepointy end of a Gerber MK II quickly. The present concern would be a slung long gun grabbed from behind. I'd suggest anyone attending/carrying at these rallies go in pairs at least. We know who the real nuts are 'n it's not us.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Milkmanjoe,

    To answer your original question about the "mechanics" of OC.

    Here in Tennessee we have to ahve a Handgun Carry Permit (HCP) to carry a loaded handgun. With that HCP we have the option to CC or OC. I prefer OC at all times, unless the weather is wet or cold.

    My reasons for preferring OC are as follows:

    I don't have to dress around my weapon, meaning I don't have to make sure that what I wear will cover my firearm sufficiently enough that it can not be detected. Some of the CC only states are real sticklers about this. During the hot summer it is more comfortable to OC.

    If I have to draw my weapon in a hurry, I won't have to dig it out from under clothing if it is OC.

    I believe that OC has a deterrant factor that CC doesn't have. I'm not looking to get into a gunfight, so if the BG sees that I am armed, there's less chance that I will get into one.

    OC in public is a way to de-sensitize the public to the idea of regular law abiding citizens carrying firearms. It's a counter measure to the propaganda the anti-gun groups spew to cause public fear about armed citizens.

    I'm hoping that by OC'ing in my community everyday, it might discourage liberal anti-gunners from moving in.

    BTW, I either carry a CZ82 9mm in a Mil/Police service thumb break holster at 9 o:clock with a spare mag opposite or a SA .45 revolver crossdraw at 10 o:clock withone or twobelt slide cartidge holders(6 rounds per)at 2 o:clock.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •