Should Mike's Web Domain Be More Precise?

imported post

Reference thread in the Michigan forum "Man ruins open carry dinner meeting by bringing long gun into a Michigan Ponderosa":

Mike wrote:

"Come on folks, we've said it before - open carry is about normalizing gun ownership through properly holstered open carry of handguns."


Mike,

If that's your view of open carry and what it is aimed at normalizing, then your organization/website needs to be "handgunopencarry.org", not "opencarry.org".

"opencarry.org" implies a broader view and support beyond handguns, because in many states it is lawful, and isexercised,to open carry firearms other than handguns. I suggest picking up the domain "handgunopencarry.org" and releasing the domain "opencarry.org", because the former so much more than the latter precisely fitswhat you are focused on.

There may be a lot of folks focused on promoting and supporting open carry of handguns and all other lawful firearms who the domain "opencarry.org" would better fit and they would be interested in using.

Yours in the spirit of clarity,

Dan

imported post

DanM wrote:

Mike wrote:

Come on folks, we've said it before - open carry is about normalizing gun ownership through properly holstered open carry of handguns.

Click to expand...

Mike,

If that's your view of open carry and what it is aimed at normalizing, then your organization/website needs to be "handgunopencarry.org", not "opencarry.org".

"opencarry.org" implies a broader view and support beyond handguns, because in many states it is lawful, and isexercised,to open carry firearms other than handguns. I suggest picking up the domain "handgunopencarry.org" and releasing the domain "opencarry.org", because the former so much more than the latter precisely fitswhat you are focused on.

There may be a lot of folks focused on promoting and supporting open carry of handguns and all other lawful firearms who the domain "opencarry.org" would better fit and they would be interested in using.

Yours in the spirit of clarity,

Dan

Click to expand...

I wonder if http://www.rifleopencarry.com is available?

Or http://www.scarycarry.com?

You would be the perfect, perfect I say, guy to start up that site, Dan.


Kimberguy would be good, too. Maybe Dan and KG could be the Mike and John of the new long gun carry movement...

imported post

HankT wrote:

I wonder if http://www.rifleopencarry.com is available?

Or http://www.scarycarry.com?

You would be the perfect, perfect I say, guy to start up that site, Dan.


Kimberguy would be good, too. Maybe Dan and KG could be the Mike and John of the new long gun carry movement...

Click to expand...

Rifleopencarry.com and scarycarry.comwould be for those who believe that open carry is just for the normalization of particular firearms foropen carry, much like "handgunopencarry.org" would be for Mike's view that open carry is about normalization of the particular firearm "handgun" for open carry. Those who exercise and support lawful open carry of all legal firearms would only be interested in the domain opencarry.org.

I happen to be actually in agreement with Mike on the practicality of normalizing holstered handgun carry as something to focus on primarily. Where I don't agree is that if his view is that "open carry is about normalization of handgun open carry", then his website should be "handgunopencarry.org", and that the domain "opencarry.org" is broader than that and should be freed up for use by those interested in exercising and supporting open carry not qualified by type of firearm. Can you address that, which is the meat of my issue?

imported post

DanM wrote:

Reference thread in the Michigan forum "Man ruins open carry dinner meeting by bringing long gun into a Michigan Ponderosa":

Mike wrote:

"Come on folks, we've said it before - open carry is about normalizing gun ownership through properly holstered open carry of handguns."


Mike,

If that's your view of open carry and what it is aimed at normalizing, then your organization/website needs to be "handgunopencarry.org", not "opencarry.org".

"opencarry.org" implies a broader view and support beyond handguns, because in many states it is lawful, and isexercised,to open carry firearms other than handguns. I suggest picking up the domain "handgunopencarry.org" and releasing the domain "opencarry.org", because the former so much more than the latter precisely fitswhat you are focused on.

There may be a lot of folks focused on promoting and supporting open carry of handguns and all other lawful firearms who the domain "opencarry.org" would better fit and they would be interested in using.

Yours in the spirit of clarity,

Dan

Click to expand...

Come on Dan, really? When most people "open carry" they are usually referring to pistols. Have you got your concealed long gun permit yet? Most folks don't go around carrying long guns, it leaves your hands free to engage in your daily business.

imported post

Darn, Double tap.

imported post

I'd like some clarification on this issue too.

Last I checked this is : Opencarry.org. Not handgunopencarry.org

Our motto is : "A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost". Not "A right to carry handguns unexercised is a right lost."

That we SEEK to NORMALIZE guns in the public eye. Not just handguns.

Quite frankly, if we're going to try to throw one member to the wolves, all because of a MINOR event, in which the police completely trampled over our rights. Well, I'm not sure if I want to participate in this cause any more, and dedicate any of my life, money, or will to it anymore.

-Richard-

imported post

Looks like there just might be a rifle open carry movement taking shape. I asked the same question about rifles vs. pistols on here a couple months back and was told it was all about the pistols.

Anyway, here isone site that is most definitely not anti-rifle open carry:

http://muster4-19.ning.com/

imported post

I always get a chuckle when other people purport to tell a party what they should do with their property, how and why. Suggestions - OK, I can deal with that once and a great while, unless it has been visited before with finality.

Are some here laboring under the impression that this forum is operated by popular vote or subject to argumentative influence? OCDO belongs to Mike and John - it is their baby - an extension of their personal beliefs and philosophies AND their rules.

That they have occasionally permitted different, unusual or controversial subjects to be explored is example enough of their tolerance.......or willingness to give enough rope.

We are here as their guests - by their invitation and consent, but not without limit or restrictions.

Much of this is not about us, but about public relations and the public's perspective. It may not suit all people at all times nor is it intended to do so. Its also not our call.

Bottom line - OCDO is arguably the single best forum of its type on the internet. There are two reasons for that. Can you deduce what (who) they are?

All of these thoughts are mine alone, but I will stand firmly behind them. I do NOT speak for Mike or John, collectively or individually.

Yata hey

imported post

Whether or not a person is a member of the site has little bearing

Any and all actions that are seen by the public eye, we ALL will be judged by them. Members or not.

Personally, I'd prefer that the groups involved be a member of this website so we can fight for less stringent gun laws together, as a group, with the same common purpose.

After all, the website is about : "A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost"

Whether dealing with handguns, or rifles.

If the administrators turn around and say "No rifles". Well, I'd go ahead and change the domain name. You'd also see a lot of forums members leave. People say "Well, this isn't an ALL OR NOTHING GIG". Well yes actually it is. There's a good potential that if rifle open-carry is banned for whatever dumb reason, due to not enough involvement by rifle OC members, handgun open-carry may fall with it. Or be the next to fall. Look at the UK. They gave up their handgun rights. Now, they're slowly getting stripped of their long-arm rights. Slowly but surely. Why? Because they're already so hard to get, nobody supports them any more.

You start losing groups of people, you lose the support, you lose the ability to make a difference.

We need to push ahead as the SAME GROUP with the SAME COMMON GOAL.

-Richard-

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

When most people "open carry" they are usually referring to pistols.

Click to expand...

That is not the issue. Mike didn't say "open carry usually refers to pistols" (which generally, at this time, is true). Please review what Mike specifically said andmy specific response, then please specifically respond to my specific words. Specifically quoting me in your responses helps, just as I specifically quoted Mike in my response.

Have you got your concealed long gun permit yet?

Click to expand...

So, if you don't have, or can't get,a concealed weapons permit for afirearm, itshouldn't be considered a valid firearm to open carry? You've just ruled out handgunopen carry by a lot of Alaskans and all Vermonters, whose states don't require (Alaska) or don't do (Vermont)any permitting ofconcealedcarry. You've also ruled out handgun carry for citizens in states like mine (Michigan) who can't afford or don't meet age requirements orthe other more strict requirementsto get a concealed carry permit, but can open carry a handgun legally and responsibly.I don't think Mike would agree with thatimplication.Also, at least here in Michigan, rifles under a certain length are considered pistols. That means my folding stock AK-47 is registered as a pistol and I can in fact carry it concealed or loaded next to me in my vehicle under the authority of my CPL (concealed pistol license). So, since my concealed permit covers my AK-47, you consider it "valid" for open carry, but the same gun in another state where a concealed permit has nothing to do with the firearm is not a "valid" open carry firearm?

I hope you realize the depth of BS in that idea of yours.

Most folks don't go around carrying long guns, it leaves your hands free to engage in your daily business.

Click to expand...

So, another of your ideas is that your hands being free to engage in daily business is key to determining if a firearm is a "valid" open carry firearm? Please answer "yes" so that I can have a field day with that one as well.

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

I always get a chuckle . . .

Click to expand...

You didn't address anything I specifically argued, in response to Mike's specific remarks.

1)There are people who exercise or support the exercise of open carry of all legal weapons.

2)There are people who exercise or support the exercise of open carry ONLY of handguns.

Isn't "handgunopencarry.org [or .com, etc.]" the logical domain of #2?

Isn't "opencarry.org [or .com, etc.]" the logical domain of #1?

Since Mike's view of his brand of open carry he supports is in accordance with #2, his domain logically should be "handgunopencarry.org [or .com, etc.]. He should free up "opencarry.org" to those in group #1. While I agree with Mike that open carry of handguns is the practical focus of our efforts at normalization, I don't agree with him that open carry, and thus "opencarry.org", should beabout open carry of handguns and nothingbut that.

I am willing to work toward transferring "opencarry.org" from him to a group who it applies more fittingly to (including me), keep it as a site that is about lawful open carry of all legal weapons, and help him secure "handgunopencarry.org [or .com, etc.] to better fit his web presence tohis true agenda. This clarity is in line with the general clarity which we gun owners and carriers are renowned in bringing with us, and which has served us well in demolishing the vagueness and double-speak of those who oppose us.

imported post

Im with ya on this one Dan.

imported post

How about , slungcarry.org ? :lol: Seriously, we have yet to over come all the hurdles of simply openly carrying Pistols...the sheep would FREAK OUT :what: to people carrying, AR-15's & AK-47's.....Think about it..we don't live in Isreal....if you want to be labeled as extremist's go for it.... They already label us as extremist's & all we want to do is be accepted while carrying side arms..... Yes,the 2nd Amendment says we have the right to carry....but do think they will let us carry Evil Black Rifles around to the store ?? NO WAY IN HELL :exclaim:

imported post

Here is my take - it doesn't really matter if everyone or no one agrees with it:

Slinging a rifle or rifle-like pistol around your neck and carrying it to get a reaction is not helping normalize guns in the eyes of the public. You are just about guaranteed that these events have politicians foaming at the mouth to legislate our rights away. While I 100% support the right to carry those firearms, I believe that they are hurting us in this climate.

By carrying a handgun you are exercising your right and thus not losing it. Any arms will suffice to exercise the right so why pick one that sends people running? If you want to carry a long gun or other completely unconventional weapon, by all means do so. Just don't delude yourself into thinking that you are helping the cause, you are most likely hurting it.

imported post

Wow so much anger. I never disagree with you you should carry whatever you want. I was just pointing out that most people are referring to small arms. If you don't like that don't come here. It is mike and Johns forum. Post a letter them and see what their response is.

And in most places unless you are hunting or target shooting it is more common to see folks open carry a sidearm over a long gun.

imported post

BARELY ILLEGAL wrote:

Looks like there just might be a rifle open carry movement taking shape. I asked the same question about rifles vs. pistols on here a couple months back and was told it was all about the pistols.

Anyway, here isone site that is most definitely not anti-rifle open carry:

http://muster4-19.ning.com/

Click to expand...

That's YOUR site, isn't it! Please remember to do this stunt in MARYLAND NOT VIRGINIA!

imported post

DanM wrote:

your organization/website needs to be "handgunopencarry.org", not "opencarry.org".

"opencarry.org" implies a broader view and support beyond handguns, because in many states it is lawful, and isexercised,to open carry firearms other than handguns.

Click to expand...

well, I don't agree - the concealed/open carry distinction traditionally, functionally, and legally, regards concealable firearms, e.g., generally, handguns.

Long gun carry is, well, just carry.

imported post

Mike wrote:

well, I don't agree - the concealed/open carry distinction is traditionally, and functionally, regards concealable firearms, generally handguns.

Long gun carry is, well, just carry.

Click to expand...

That seems to me to be a fairly dismissive attitude because someone is talking about "those" guns.

Sort of like the Fuds with their skeet and trapshotguns who have no use for guys with their evil black guns...

Sort of like the tacticool guys with their evil black guns who have no use for the guys with their target pistols...

Sort of like theuppity rich kidswith their target pistols who have no use for the guys with their hunting rifles...

Sort of like the rednecks with their hunting rifles who have no use for the guys with their self defense handguns...

And the circle continues ad infinitum.

The biggest problem we have as gun owners in this country who are systematically having their rights taken awayis not the Democrat party, the Republican party or even the Brady Bunch.

It's us.

We have to look at the big picture. We have to understand and accept that we're all in this together. And if we're serious about the right to keep and bear arms, that also means open carry of long guns. To ignore the fact that we should all be able to carry what we want, when we want, would simply be hypocritical.

imported post

hp-hobo wrote:

We have to look at the big picture.

Click to expand...

Looking at the big picture, requires a Venn diagram approach - if you take an all or nothing approach togun carry rights, e.g., that no legal or social or logical restrictions should ever be applied or implied to gun carry, no matter whether the gun is in a holster, a hand, slung over a shoulder, or whether it is along gun or machine gun,being handled at the dinner table, etc., you are basically left with very little, or no,shaded gray area of agreement - and even if some identifiable segment of pulic opinion might warm up to this view, the law will not, and the approach you suggest would truly hurt the development of the law right now, which is headed in our direction. For now.

imported post

hp-hobo wrote:

Mike wrote:

well, I don't agree - the concealed/open carry distinction is traditionally, and functionally, regards concealable firearms, generally handguns.

Long gun carry is, well, just carry.

Click to expand...

That seems to me to be a fairly dismissive attitude because someone is talking about "those" guns.

Sort of like the Fuds with their skeet and trapshotguns who have no use for guys with their evil black guns...

Sort of like the tacticool guys with their evil black guns who have no use for the guys with their target pistols...

Sort of like theuppity rich kidswith their target pistols who have no use for the guys with their hunting rifles...

Sort of like the rednecks with their hunting rifles who have no use for the guys with their self defense handguns...

And the circle continues ad infinitum.

The biggest problem we have as gun owners in this country who are systematically having their rights taken awayis not the Democrat party, the Republican party or even the Brady Bunch.

It's us.

We have to look at the big picture. We have to understand and accept that we're all in this together. And if we're serious about the right to keep and bear arms, that also means open carry of long guns. To ignore the fact that we should all be able to carry what we want, when we want, would simply be hypocritical.

Click to expand...

Some good points in all that...

One point was left out though...

Without consideration as whether an action, by an individual or by an organization, will have a positive effect... or a negative effect... is foolish and irresponsible.

So yes, we are all in this together... hence it behooves each and every one of us to be responsible, not only for our actions after the fact, but also what we do and when we do it before we do it.

And the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of carrying what we want, when we want. There are other considerations ...after all, I can't keep nor bear arms in your house, restaurant, hardware store, gas station, or grocery store if you the owner say I cannot because the owner of private property has the right to decide what can/cannot be done, when it can/cannot be done, and even how it can/cannot be done.... regardless of if we agree with it or not.