View Poll Results: I support the following forms of carry, as long as said carry is legal:

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • Sidearm and Longarm, Open and Concealed

    46 90.20%
  • Sidearm and Longarm, Open Only

    0 0%
  • Sidearm and Longarm, Concealed Only

    0 0%
  • Sidearm Only, Open and Concealed

    4 7.84%
  • Sidearm Only, Open Only

    0 0%
  • Sidearm Only, Concealed Only

    0 0%
  • Longarm Only, Open and Concealed

    0 0%
  • Longarm Only, Open Only

    0 0%
  • Longarm Only, Concealed Only

    1 1.96%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: The Raging Debate

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    I would like to test the opinions of the larger OCDO community on a topic that has been presented at the Michigan Boards.

    The idea of open carry of long arms has blown up like a small bomb over there. There has been heated and strong debate on the subject.

    Now, personally, long arm open carry is not my style. Long arms tend to be cumbersome, heavy, and just plain inconvienent. I perfer to open carry my SA XD, which is much more comfortable and easy to manage.

    That being said, I support those who do choose to carry a long arm. If they are willing to deal with those issues I am not, then more power to them.I support their rights to carry as they see fit, just as I expect them to support my rights.

    Now, the question becomes: What do we support as a community?

    I believewe here atOpenCarry.org, as a group,should follow this philosophy: We support ALL forms of lawful carry.

    To do anything less is hypocrisy. If we ostracisize those who OC a long arm, then we give credibility to those CC-only advocates that call the OC of a sidearm "foolish". Every last single argument against longarm OC has been made against sidearm OC. If those arguments are held valid by this community against longarm OC, then we must also hold them valid against sidearm OC.

    So, I put it to you, members and friends of OCDO: What rights do you support?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Near The Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    454

    Post imported post

    I dont care how you carry, dont care what you decide to carry.....I support our right to carry.

    Carry On!



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    154

    Post imported post

    This is my BOOM STICK!

    But yeah, long, short, hell fully automatic even, it doesn't matter to me, and should all be covered under the 2A. "Shall not be infringed" and all that.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Near The Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    454

    Post imported post

    squisher wrote:
    This is my BOOM STICK!

    But yeah, long, short, hell fully automatic even, it doesn't matter to me, and should all be covered under the 2A. "Shall not be infringed" and all that.
    Love that movie!




    Ash- Alright you Primitive Screwheads, listen up! You see this? This... is my boomstick! The twelve-gauge double-barreled Remington. S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about a hundred and nine, ninety five. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that?

  5. #5
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    Simply put I always wonder what part of "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" the gubmint does not understand?
    Keep your powder dry!
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Phoenixphire wrote:
    I believewe here atOpenCarry.org, as a group,should follow this philosophy: We support ALL forms of lawful carry.
    ...

    So, I put it to you, members and friends of OCDO: What rights do you support?
    Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

    Did I read that right?





  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Phoenixphire wrote:
    I believewe here atOpenCarry.org, as a group,should follow this philosophy: We support ALL forms of lawful carry.
    ...

    So, I put it to you, members and friends of OCDO: What rights do you support?
    Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

    Did I read that right?



    Our right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    154

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Phoenixphire wrote:
    I believewe here atOpenCarry.org, as a group,should follow this philosophy: We support ALL forms of lawful carry.
    ...

    So, I put it to you, members and friends of OCDO: What rights do you support?
    Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

    Did I read that right?



    If you can conceal it, go for it.

    "Is that a 30-30 in your pants or are you just happy to see me?"

    Our right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
    Though, "bareing" arms doesn't have much to do with concealing, "bearing" however... (just messin with ya, I know what you meant).

  9. #9
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    T Vance wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Phoenixphire wrote:
    I believewe here atOpenCarry.org, as a group,should follow this philosophy: We support ALL forms of lawful carry.
    ...

    So, I put it to you, members and friends of OCDO: What rights do you support?
    Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

    Did I read that right?



    Our right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
    Are you saying that a law to ban concealed carry of AR-15/AK-47 type firearms would be an "infringement" as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment?

    That would be an interesting position to advocate. Kind of extremist, actually.

  10. #10
    Regular Member NY2AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    I'm gonna get flamed for this but,

    The antis have infringed on our rights by slowly peeling away at them. If they one day in 1948 decided to outright ban all guns, there would have been outrage. However, since they've progressed so slowly, it's been like the old boiling a frog saying.

    Now, I think, and of course this is simply my opinion, carrying of long arms has the potential of making the sheep much more uncomfortable than a handgun. Also, if we are to take back all our rights, we should probably use the same techniques the antis have used. This is of course just my opinion. Just because I wouldn't carry a rifle in most situations I don't feel as though it's the governments place to tell it's citizens they cannot, and if I were to see someone carrying a longarm in the open I would totaly support it.
    If ever you find yourself in a situation where you can't be safe, be violent!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    T Vance wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Phoenixphire wrote:
    I believe*we here at*OpenCarry.org, as a group,*should follow this philosophy: We support ALL forms of lawful carry.
    ...

    So, I put it to you, members and friends of OCDO: What rights do you support?
    Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

    Did I read that right?

    *

    *
    Our right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
    Are you saying that a law to ban concealed carry of AR-15/AK-47 type firearms would be an "infringement" as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment?

    That would be an interesting position to advocate. Kind of extremist, actually.
    "Extremist" is relative to the company you're in.

    Extremist doesn't have anything to do with right or wrong, it's just something that's outside the common conceptions of the majority.

    Consider a street corner preacher, shouting the Word at passers-by. Extremist? Absolutely. Almost nobody would consider that normal behavior. Is it wrong, or is it free exercise of a protected right?

    If I want to carry a shotgun, rifle, handgun, or even a sword openly or concealed, that is my right. It is EVERY free person's right to keep and bear arms for defense of life and liberty. The US Constitution and my State Constitution are SUPPOSED to protect that right against infringement by the government, and they have failed miserably. There should be NO exceptions. There should be NO rules. Any gun, anytime, anywhere, shall NOT be Infringed!

    I'd like to add one thing to the poll: I selected the first option, but I would like to add: with NO PERMIT REQUIRED, on ANY public property.

    ...Orygunner...

    BTW, Ash has his booger hook on the bangswitch of his boomstick... Bad form, Ash...

  12. #12
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    In my opinion this is a flawed poll because...

    If the question is whether or not I support the right to bear arms of course my answer will be Yes. There is no reason to break that down into subsections... "arms" are "arms".

    However, at this point in time, on this forum, the poll itself is disingenuous because with the subject line and being posted on the forum it leaves the impression that it has something to do with opencarry.org and MOC's purpose of promoting gun rights using the tactic of exposing the public to holstered handguns.

    Please let us not confuse the issue of supporting the 2nd Amendment with a specific organization's specific method of furthering that support.

    On a personal note... just for me...

    If I am going to attend an organization's event that has the purpose of educating and desensitizing through the use of holstered handguns... then I will respect the organization's purpose of that event without pushing my personal belief of the full right to keep and bear arms........ or I won't go.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    576

    Post imported post

    I support all, BUT now is NOT the time to push the next level, let's slow down a bit and rethink what is being suggested.

    !) when i first got involved 2+ yrs ago many of you on this site were NO where to be found.

    2) We worked hard to get the police, society, the news, to listen to us in apositive way, we are now starting to get the message of Open Carry out to the general population.

    3 Why the push to go long gun all of a sudden is it that important at this time ?

    4) Or is it because it is something new ?

    5) Is it that important, that we need to destroy, & split the Open Carry movement, all over the desire to oc a item that is NOT normally carried on a day to day basis ?

    6) Seems to me, we are a very small group, and we are getting smaller because of this, if this is your attempt to destroy open carry in Michigan think again,

    as I am going to continue to carry my pistol, everywherei will not change my view on this matter til the general public, is informed and excepting of oc, then when i NEED to i will carry a long gun...
    Carry Smart

  14. #14
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    I'll catch heck for this too probably....

    Any journey begins with the first step. There are different paths to any destination. One path involves walking, one step at a time, to get to the bottom of a valley. One path involves jumping off a cliff. Both paths result in reaching the bottom.

    I'd prefer to walk down and arrive a bit later healthy than to jump off the cliff and put an end to everything I wish to accomplish.

    Others may disagree with how I'd prefer to do things and that is ok....
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  15. #15
    Regular Member malignity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,101

    Post imported post

    14 for open carry or concealed of long arm and sidearm.

    Why am I not surprised?

    Then again, I'm still waiting for a 'Long arm only, concealed only' vote.
    All opinions posted on opencarry.org are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of opencarry.org or Michigan Open Carry Inc.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    154

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    T Vance wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Phoenixphire wrote:
    I believewe here atOpenCarry.org, as a group,should follow this philosophy: We support ALL forms of lawful carry.
    ...

    So, I put it to you, members and friends of OCDO: What rights do you support?
    Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

    Did I read that right?



    Our right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
    Are you saying that a law to ban concealed carry of AR-15/AK-47 type firearms would be an "infringement" as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment?

    That would be an interesting position to advocate. Kind of extremist, actually.
    Considering that there exist such weapons built upon the AR-15/AK platforms that are legally considered "handguns," and as such they can legally be carried concealed (concealed how is up to the carrier to figure out) in the same way any other "handguns" can be legally carried concealed -- I would say not extremist at all in the legal sense.

    Strange perhaps, but since when was strange illegal, or even wrong?

    "...not be infringed" does not mean "...not be infringed unless it's strange" -- it's wording is absolute, as is its meaning.

  17. #17
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    squisher wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    T Vance wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Phoenixphire wrote:
    I believewe here atOpenCarry.org, as a group,should follow this philosophy: We support ALL forms of lawful carry.
    ...

    So, I put it to you, members and friends of OCDO: What rights do you support?
    Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

    Did I read that right?



    Our right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
    Are you saying that a law to ban concealed carry of AR-15/AK-47 type firearms would be an "infringement" as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment?

    That would be an interesting position to advocate. Kind of extremist, actually.
    Considering that there exist such weapons built upon the AR-15/AK platforms that are legally considered "handguns," and as such they can legally be carried concealed (concealed how is up to the carrier to figure out) in the same way any other "handguns" can be legally carried concealed -- I would say not extremist at all in the legal sense.

    Strange perhaps, but since when was strange illegal, or even wrong?

    "...not be infringed" does not mean "...not be infringed unless it's strange" -- it's wording is absolute, as is its meaning.
    Squisher, do you thinkthat a law to ban concealed carry of AR-15/AK-47 type rifles would be an "infringement" as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment?


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    154

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    squisher wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    T Vance wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Phoenixphire wrote:
    I believewe here atOpenCarry.org, as a group,should follow this philosophy: We support ALL forms of lawful carry.
    ...

    So, I put it to you, members and friends of OCDO: What rights do you support?
    Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

    Did I read that right?



    Our right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
    Are you saying that a law to ban concealed carry of AR-15/AK-47 type firearms would be an "infringement" as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment?

    That would be an interesting position to advocate. Kind of extremist, actually.
    Considering that there exist such weapons built upon the AR-15/AK platforms that are legally considered "handguns," and as such they can legally be carried concealed (concealed how is up to the carrier to figure out) in the same way any other "handguns" can be legally carried concealed -- I would say not extremist at all in the legal sense.

    Strange perhaps, but since when was strange illegal, or even wrong?

    "...not be infringed" does not mean "...not be infringed unless it's strange" -- it's wording is absolute, as is its meaning.
    Squisher, do you thinkthat a law to ban concealed carry of AR-15/AK-47 type rifles would be an "infringement" as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment?
    I would have to say yes.

    Never mind any practicality concerns with trying to conceal a large(r) weapon, unless "bear arms" means openly only, then laws regulating/prohibiting the concealed carry of *any* weapon fall afoul of the 2nd amendment.

    Not saying I CC my M44 carbine (too heavy!) but there shouldn't be a law against it either. As far as it goes, it's currently legal (sans permit even) to OC any long gun where I live, so there's that much at least.

    Edit: Somehow AR/AK pattern rifles are getting picked on in particular. To me, a long arm is a long arm is a long arm. Bolt, Lever, Semi-auto, pump, rifle, shotgun, black powder muzzleloader etc. Heck, an AR pattern rifle is really just a "scary" looking Mini-14 as far as functionality goes (semi-auto .223).

    And don't even get me started on the NFA/Class III BS (ya know, full auto, SBR, SBS, suppressors, etc).

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    463

    Post imported post

    Edit: Somehow AR/AK pattern rifles are getting picked on in particular. To me, a long arm is a long arm is a long arm. Bolt, Lever, Semi-auto, pump, rifle, shotgun, black powder muzzleloader etc. Heck, an AR pattern rifle is really just a "scary" looking Mini-14 as far as functionality goes (semi-auto .223).


    I've been hammering this point for years...a Ruger Mini-14 and an AR pattern rifle shoot the same .223 round and one can getmagazines for BOTH that can hold more than 20 rounds. The idea that because an AR pattern rifle looks "scary" to some (I happen to think it a beautiful looking rifle) it should be banned is nothing short of absurd. Classifying the civilian versions of AR or AK rifles as "assault rifles" is a complete and total misnomer...

    From Wikipedia...

    The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used synonymous with assault. The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[1][/suP] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept.

    The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][/suP][3][/suP][4][/suP]


    Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (which the M-16 rifle is based on) are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I couldn't vote, because there was no option for "I support all forms of carry regardless of the legality thereof."

    Edit: With that said, I made a post about "baby steps" just earlier. Although I support the right of every man to carry a rifle in any manner he sees fit (so long as no aggression occurs, of course), I think that, as a practical matter, it is wise to focus on handgun OC when it comes to advancing the RKBA as a political reality.

    When it comes to enlightening the citizenry, putting that handgun they are already used to seeing on the side of someone they fear (a cop) on the side of someone they have no reason to fear (someone who is not a cop), has great "normalization" potential.

    Carrying a rifle demands a lot more out of those citizens with whom we are trying to achieve "normalized" status. Specifically, it demands that they already view guns as normal. It's putting the cart before the horse.

    However, what I support as a matter of right and what I advise as practical behavior are two things which rarely intersect.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    +1 marshaul! :celebrate

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Orygunner wrote:
    +1 marshaul! :celebrate
    Just for the record, Orygunner made this remark before I completed my edit wherein I made a distinction between what I support as a matter of right and what behavior I advise as a matter of prudence.

    Just so as I don't go putting words into peoples' mouths.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Orygunner wrote:
    +1 marshaul! :celebrate
    Just for the record, Orygunner made this remark before I completed my edit wherein I made a distinction between what I support as a matter of right and what behavior I advise as a matter of prudence.

    Just so as I don't go putting words into peoples' mouths.
    Thank you, I will now correct my previous +1.


    +2!

    :celebrate

    ...Orygunner...

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    I couldn't vote, because there was no option for "I support all forms of carry regardless of the legality thereof."

    Edit: With that said, I made a post about "baby steps" just earlier. Although I support the right of every man to carry a rifle in any manner he sees fit (so long as no aggression occurs, of course), I think that, as a practical matter, it is wise to focus on handgun OC when it comes to advancing the RKBA as a political reality.

    When it comes to enlightening the citizenry, putting that handgun they are already used to seeing on the side of someone they fear (a cop) on the side of someone they have no reason to fear (someone who is not a cop), has great "normalization" potential.

    Carrying a rifle demands a lot more out of those citizens with whom we are trying to achieve "normalized" status. Specifically, it demands that they already view guns as normal. It's putting the cart before the horse.

    However, what I support as a matter of right and what I advise as practical behavior are two things which rarely intersect.
    +moar

    I think most people receive no public notice of their carry, because they are not even noticed. I think most of the people who are opposed to Long Gun Carry, are opposed because they have their experiences only because no one notices. If no one notices, it is useless, from my perspective. It is impossible not to notice a long gun.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    ixtow wrote:
    +moar

    I think most people receive no public notice of their carry, because they are not even noticed.* I think most of the people who are opposed to Long Gun Carry, are opposed because they have their experiences only because no one notices.* If no one notices, it is useless, from my perspective.* It is impossible not to notice a long gun.
    The common misconception of Open Carry is "he's just looking for trouble" or "he's just wanting attention."

    I have to admit, if I'm OCing, yes, part of it is that I AM wanting attention, but not for the negative reasons some might think. Not for attention's sake, but to desensitize the public to the sight of regular people carrying firearms. To act as an advocate and liaison for gun owners.

    I want more people to be seen carrying firearms in public. if nobody notices, how will the general public ever get used to it?

    ...Orygunner...

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
  •