The Raging Debate

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?

imported post

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

Carry On!

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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!

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?

Click to expand...

Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

Did I read that right?

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?

Click to expand...

Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

Did I read that right?

Click to expand...

Our right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

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?

Click to expand...

Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

Did I read that right?

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

Though, "bareing" arms doesn't have much to do with concealing, "bearing" however... (just messin with ya, I know what you meant).

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?

Click to expand...

Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

Did I read that right?

Click to expand...

Our right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

Did I read that right?

 

 

Click to expand...

Our right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

"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...

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.

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

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....

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.

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?

Click to expand...

Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

Did I read that right?

Click to expand...

Our right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

Did I read that right?

Click to expand...

Our right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

Did I read that right?

Click to expand...

Our right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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).

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).

Click to expand...

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]

• It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
• It must be capable of selective fire;
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine.

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.

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.