Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: OPEN CARRY VS CONCEALED CARRY

  1. #1
    Regular Member NewZealandAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb of Provo in UTAH
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    Open Carry vs Concealed Carry


    Open Carry vs Concealed Carry, I found this article which I feel does a good job explaining why open carry might be better than concealed carry. I myself think it does a great job dispelling the myths that open carry is bad.

    The Open Carry ArgumentMy primary goal when I'm out and about, besides whatever I went out and about to do, is to go about peaceably and not be the victim of a violent crime. To that end I carry a firearm whenever I go out as well as follow all the other standard safety practices like maintaining situational awareness, staying out of high crime areas, and avoiding confrontation. I also have a larger overall goal of making it through my life without shooting anyone. Simply put, I don't want to be responsible, legally or morally, for another’s death. Those two goals might appear at first blush to be mutually exclusive, and with concealed carry it would be a difficult set of goals to realize.

    Carry of any firearm or other weapon for defensive purposes is a solemn responsibility. Those of us that do (openly or concealed) are mortified by the idea, constantly promoted by the pacifists, that our behavior is more reckless because we are armed. In other words, because we carry a handgun we take more risks than we would if we were unarmed. While it would be dishonest to claim we are all responsible gun owners, it is my belief that the vast majority of us are. Regardless of what or how you carry, you need to come to the realization that you are setting yourself up to lose. Whenever you are placed in a defensive situation, you will always lose; it’s only the degree of loss that’s negotiable. Ayoob hits on this in his book, In the Gravest Extreme. He suggests tossing the robber a small wad of cash and moving off, even if you could prevail with a weapon. There’s a very good reason for this. Regardless of how skilled you are at drawing your weapon, you are going to lose. It may be only a minor loss, like being very shaken up and not sleeping well for a few days, or it may be a major loss, like becoming fertilizer, or (most likely) it may be somewhere in-between, but you always lose. Your life will not be the same even if you prevail.

    Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed. Every study I've ever read, not most but every study, says that criminals will avoid an armed person or home when selecting a victim. That only makes sense, right? Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self preservation we all have. Hyenas don’t attack lions to steal the gazelle the lions have just killed. It's all about risk management; are the potential gains (a tasty gazelle dinner) worth the risks (pain and damage the lion’s teeth will cause), and does the hyena really need to test the lion to figure out the answer? No, the hyena can see the lion’s teeth and knows to stay well clear.

    Deterrent Value:
    When I'm carrying concealed I feel like my "teeth" are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value. If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber, I appear as easy a target as almost anyone else out on the street. My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself. My goal, however, is not to be a victim in the first place, remember? I don’t want to be a victim that fought back successfully and triumphed; I prefer to not be victimized at all. I recognize that there are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and "surprise" the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity. Concealed carry is good; it throws a wrench in the works for criminals who might see the teeming masses as a smorgasbord of financial gain. This deterrent effect is, nonetheless, indirect and often nil. At some point the thug will weigh the risks vs. the gains; is his current desperation for money/drugs/booze/gold grille greater than the gamble that one of those people might be carrying a gun? If he decides to play the odds, which helped along with surprise tip the scale in his favor, he will attack. Will his attack allow enough time for me to draw my concealed firearm to affect a defense? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

    Remember, I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone. So how do I realize both goals; or how do I make them inclusive? I can do that through open carry. By making it clear and obvious that I am armed, that I have teeth, I tip the risk scale to the point that the criminal's gains are far outweighed by the risk. There is no ambiguity when the thug is doing his risk assessment, there's something right there in plain sight that can quickly and painfully change or terminate his life. You may not think his life has much value, but as I mentioned before, he has the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it's every bit as valuable as yours is to you. It would be foolish to ignore this indisputable fact when you develop your overall tactical strategy.

    The Five Stages of Violent Crime
    I am a firm believer in this defense theology and urge anyone who carries a firearm for protection (and even those who do not) to follow the link and read it carefully. Please, for your and your family's sake, read that. Drill down into the hyperlinks for better explanations; absorb as much information as you can. A violent crime does not begin at the point where one person with ill intent draws a weapon or attacks another.


    The Five Stages of Violent Crime: Crime and violence are processes that take time to develop. The attack is not the first step, the preliminary triangle must be built. There are five distinct stages that are easily identified:1) Intent 2) Interview 3) Positioning4) Attack 5) Reaction I do not believe the act begins after the BG has made his intentions known by drawing on you (attack); it began when he formed the intent. Well, there's not a lot I can do personally to stop another's intent, so I need to look a little farther along in the sequence and try to derail that train before it gets to the attack. For the sake of argument, let's remove weapons from the equation for just a moment. A 5’2” unarmed attacker isn't going to choose a 6’6” victim over a 5’1” victim, right? He's going to attack the easier target. Now let's come back to the reality of violent crime and add back the weapons. Concealed carry presumes it is better to wait until the opponent has drawn his knife or gun and then try to "fix" the situation. It seems a bit foolish to promote the idea that it's better to attempt to stop a violent crime in the fourth stage when you could instead prevent it in the second. A concealed weapon cannot deter an attack at the "interview" stage; it’s completely ineffectual in that role. Open carry is the only method that provides a direct deterrent. Let's say the bad-guy missed the openly carried pistol and holster during the interview stage, and has proceeded to the "positioning" stage. Chances are pretty good he'll see it at some point then, right? Then, let's say the planets have all aligned just so and he, for whatever reason, has begun his attack despite your openly carried sidearm. At this point, the OCer is on level footing with the CCer, the attack has begun. Who has the advantage? Well, I’m going to say that with all things being equal (skill level and equipment) the OCer has a speed of draw advantage over the CCer.

    First One To Be Shot:
    There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or "the first one shot" when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened. If the robber walks in and sees that you're armed, his whole plan has encountered an unexpected variable. In bank robberies where he might expect to see an armed guard he will have already factored that possibility into his plan, but only for the armed guard, not for open or concealed carry citizens. No robber robs a bank without at least a rudimentary plan. Nevertheless, being present for a bank robbery is an extremely remote possibility for most of us regardless of our preferred method of handgun carry, so let's go back in the 7-11. If the robber sees someone is armed he is forced to either significantly alter the plan or abort it outright. Robbing is an inherently apprehensive occupation, and one that doesn't respond well to instant modifications. He is not prepared to commit murder when he only planned for larceny. He knows that a petty robbery will not garner the intense police manhunt a murder would. He doesn't know if you're an armed citizen or a police officer and isn't going to take the time to figure it out. Either way, if someone in the 7-11 is unexpectedly armed, how many others might be similarly adorned and where might they be? Does this unexpectedly armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed nearby, someone who is watching right now? Self preservation compels him to abort the plan for one that is less risky. So we see that the logic matches the history; open carriers are not the first ones shot because it doesn’t make sense in any common street crime scenario that they would be. If your personal self protection plan emphasizes "Hollywood" style crimes over the more realistic street mugging, it might be best to stay home.

    Surprise:
    Probably the most common condemnation of open carry comes from the armchair tacticians who believe it's better to have the element of surprise in a criminal encounter. Although this was touched on in the previous paragraph about deterrence, I'll expand on it specifically here because there are some important truths you need to consider before you lean too heavily on this false support. Surprise as a defensive tactic is often based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios, and seems to exist only in the minds of concealed carry firearms proponents. The circumstance where several street toughs surround and taunt you for a while before robbing you, like in some Charles Bronson movie, is not realistic; the mugger wants to get in and out as fast as possible. In most cases you will have only seconds to realize what's happening, make a decision, and react. Imagine you're walking along the sidewalk when two gangsta looking teenagers suddenly appear at the corner coming in the opposite direction. You have only seconds to react if their intent was to victimize you. Do you draw your concealed firearm now or wait until there's an actual visible threat? If they are just on their way to church and you pull a gun on them, you are the criminal and you will likely forever lose your firearms rights for such a foolish action. If you don't draw and they pull a knife or pistol when they're just a couple steps away, your only options are draw (if you think you can) or comply. Imagine staring at the shiny blade of a knife being held by a very nervous and violent mugger, three inches from you or your wife's throat and having to decide whether or not you have time to draw from concealment. The element of surprise may not do you any good; in fact the only surprising thing that might happen is that your concealed carry pistol gets taken along with your wallet. The thug will later get a good chuckle with his buddies about how you brought a gun to a knife fight. The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one. What many internet commandos call "defensive surprise" is nothing more than damage control, a last ditch effort to fight your way back out of a dangerous situation. I am not aware of any army that teaches using surprise as a defense against attack. No squad of soldiers goes on patrol with their weapons hidden so that they can "surprise" the enemy should they walk into an ambush.

    It Will Get Stolen:
    Another common criticism of open carry is that the firearm itself will be the target of theft, prompting a criminal to attack simply to get the gun from you. Like the previous example of being the first one shot in a robbery, above, this is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence it happens. It also blindly ignores the more obvious fact that anything you possess can make you the target of a crime, be it a car, a watch, or even a female companion (girlfriend, wife, or daughter). Crooks commonly steal for only one of two reasons; to get something you have that they want, or to get something that you have so they can sell it and buy something they want. I don't claim it could never happen; just that it's so remote a possibility that it doesn't warrant drastic alterations to our self defense strategies. If you believe otherwise, leave your wife, children, watch, sunglasses, jewelry, and cell phone at home, hop into your Pinto wagon, and head out to do your thing. Very often, someone critical of open carry will cite some example of a uniformed police officer whose gun was taken by a violent criminal, and yes, this does indeed happen. The argument, however, breaks down when they assume the officer was targeted solely to steal his firearm. What is more likely is that the officer was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. More often, the officer's gun is taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody due to an entirely unrelated matter. However, let's suppose, for argument, that a police officer really was attacked just to get his firearm. What actions did the police department take to prevent it from reoccurring? Did they demand that their officers carry concealed? No, of course not. You should, like the police, prioritize your defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.

    It Scares People:
    One other statement against open carry I hear is that it damages public perception of firearms owners, or that by carrying openly we are not being good ambassadors to the public. While there are some people who have a genuine fear of firearms, due either to some horrible past experience or anti-gun indoctrination, the majority of people are either indifferent to them or quite fascinated by them. I've never kept track of the dozens of fellow citizens I've encountered who have marveled at the idea of open carry, but I do know exactly how many have expressed displeasure at it; one. People are scared of many things for many reasons; however, pretending those things do not exist only perpetuates the fear. Someone who is disturbed by open carry is going to be every bit as disturbed by concealed carry. The only effective way to overcome a fear is to come to the intellectual realization that the phobia is based on emotion and not on fact. By being a firsthand witness that a firearm was carried responsibly and peaceably, and wasn't being carried in the commission of a crime, one who was apprehensive about firearms discovers their fear is not fact based, but emotional. Thus, open carry can be a very effectual way of helping to overcome the emotionally based fear of the firearm. After all, you'd be much more likely to believe in ghosts if you saw one rather than if you listened to a ghost story around a campfire. In other words, we give significantly more credibility to the things we experience than we do to the things we hear. The bottom line is that this argument is made by people who don't, can't, or haven't carried openly; those of us who do so on a regular basis have an entirely different experience.

    I’m Not Comfortable Carrying Openly:
    This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual. We all have a comfort zone for any aspect of our lives and we prefer to stay within that comfort zone. We all agree that it's better to be armed and never need the firearm than it is to need it and not have it. There is a point where concealing your firearm becomes so problematic, due to conditions like temperature or comfort, that some choose to either leave it behind or carry in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to draw it quickly. If it takes me five or six seconds to draw my firearm from deep concealment and I had sufficient time before hand to actually do so, I would prefer to use that five or six seconds to avoid the entire encounter. I'm glad we have concealed carry laws in most of the states; it empowers and protects not only us but the general public through the offset deterrent effect. Some of us, however, choose the more direct deterrent effect of open carry.

    Conclusion
    No, open carry is not the be-all-end-all of self defense any more than concealed carry is. The purpose of this essay is not to convince you to carry a firearm openly, but to merely point out the reasoning I used to determine that it is often the best option for me. If you think otherwise, please feel free to write an essay of your own outlining the reasoning you used. I would suggest that you avoid the intellectual mistake of emphasizing rare or unlikely defense scenarios that many of us will never experience. I believe one should prioritize for the most likely threat, not the least likely threat. I don't put Hollywood style bank robberies high on my threat list because I rarely go into a bank and those types of robberies are very rare themselves. I live in the most crime riddled city in the northwest; the most likely threat here is some young male with a knife or gun trying to carjack me or mug me on the street, in the park, or in a parking lot. With this knowledge I build my personal self protection plan based on that manner of attack. This may not suit you, especially if you live in Hollywood.
    (Dion Wood). MY FREEDOM PAGE[/COLOR] with valuable links to ALTERNATIVE MEDIA, Internet Radio shows and other sites to restore our FREEDOM & LIBERTYhttp://www.QRZ.com/db/KB9QFH TELEPHONE: +1(800)808-KIWI that's +1(800)808-5494 Tollfree. "NewZealander By Birth, American By The Grace Of God." See also http://www.facebook.com/NewZealandAmerican & http://RTR.org/NewZealandAmerican IN MEMORY OF OUR GOD, OUR RELIGION, AND FREEDOM, AND OUR PEACE, OUR WIVES, AND OUR CHILDREN" (The Title Of LIBERTY)

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    I've really got to tell ya that bright blue bold italics isn't the best font you could have used for this. It's pretty as hell, but it really strains the old peepers.:shock:

    I copied it over to Word and reformatted it to make it a bit more reader friendly for those with eyes like mine.


    Open Carry v Concealed Carry


    Open Carry v Concealed Carry, I found this article which I feel does a good job explaining why open carry might be better than concealed carry. I myself think it does a great job dispelling the myths that open carry is bad.

    The Open Carry Argument

    My primary goal when I'm out and about, besides whatever I went out and about to do, is to go about peaceably and not be the victim of a violent crime. To that end I carry a firearm whenever I go out as well as follow all the other standard safety practices like maintaining situational awareness, staying out of high crime areas, and avoiding confrontation. I also have a larger overall goal of making it through my life without shooting anyone. Simply put, I don't want to be responsible, legally or morally, for another’s death. Those two goals might appear at first blush to be mutually exclusive, and with concealed carry it would be a difficult set of goals to realize.

    Carry of any firearm or other weapon for defensive purposes is a solemn responsibility. Those of us that do (openly or concealed) are mortified by the idea, constantly promoted by the pacifists, that our behavior is more reckless because we are armed. In other words, because we carry a handgun we take more risks than we would if we were unarmed. While it would be dishonest to claim we are all responsible gun owners, it is my belief that the vast majority of us are. Regardless of what or how you carry, you need to come to the realization that you are setting yourself up to lose. Whenever you are placed in a defensive situation, you will always lose; it’s only the degree of loss that’s negotiable. Ayoob hits on this in his book, In the Gravest Extreme. He suggests tossing the robber a small wad of cash and moving off, even if you could prevail with a weapon. There’s a very good reason for this. Regardless of how skilled you are at drawing your weapon, you are going to lose. It may be only a minor loss, like being very shaken up and not sleeping well for a few days, or it may be a major loss, like becoming fertilizer, or (most likely) it may be somewhere in-between, but you always lose. Your life will not be the same even if you prevail.

    Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed

    Every study I've ever read, not most but every study, says that criminals will avoid an armed person or home when selecting a victim. That only makes sense, right? Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self-preservation we all have. Hyenas don’t attack lions to steal the gazelle the lions have just killed. It's all about risk management; are the potential gains (a tasty gazelle dinner) worth the risks (pain and damage the lion’s teeth will cause), and does the hyena really need to test the lion to figure out the answer? No, the hyena can see the lion’s teeth and knows to stay well clear.


    Deterrent Value

    When I'm carrying concealed I feel like my "teeth" are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value. If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber, I appear as easy a target as almost anyone else out on the street. My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself. My goal, however, is not to be a victim in the first place, remember? I don’t want to be a victim that fought back successfully and triumphed; I prefer to not be victimized at all. I recognize that there are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and "surprise" the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity. Concealed carry is good; it throws a wrench in the works for criminals who might see the teeming masses as a smorgasbord of financial gain. This deterrent effect is, nonetheless, indirect and often nil. At some point the thug will weigh the risks vs. the gains; is his current desperation for money/drugs/booze/gold grille greater than the gamble that one of those people might be carrying a gun? If he decides to play the odds, which helped along with surprise tip the scale in his favor, he will attack. Will his attack allow enough time for me to draw my concealed firearm to affect a defense? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

    Remember, I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone. So how do I realize both goals; or how do I make them inclusive? I can do that through open carry. By making it clear and obvious that I am armed, that I have teeth, I tip the risk scale to the point that the criminal's gains are far outweighed by the risk. There is no ambiguity when the thug is doing his risk assessment, there's something right there in plain sight that can quickly and painfully change or terminate his life. You may not think his life has much value, but as I mentioned before, he has the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it's every bit as valuable as yours is to you. It would be foolish to ignore this indisputable fact when you develop your overall tactical strategy.

    The Five Stages of Violent Crime

    I am a firm believer in this defense theology and urge anyone who carries a firearm for protection (and even those who do not) to follow the link and read it carefully. Please, for your and your family's sake, read that. Drill down into the hyperlinks for better explanations; absorb as much information as you can. A violent crime does not begin at the point where one person with ill intent draws a weapon or attacks another.

    The Five Stages of Violent Crime

    Crime and violence are processes that take time to develop. The attack is not the first step, the preliminary triangle must be built. There are five distinct stages that are easily identified:

    1) Intent
    2) Interview
    3) Positioning
    4) Attack
    5) Reaction.

    I do not believe the act begins after the BG has made his intentions known by drawing on you (attack); it began when he formed the intent. Well, there's not a lot I can do personally to stop another's intent, so I need to look a little farther along in the sequence and try to derail that train before it gets to the attack. For the sake of argument, let's remove weapons from the equation for just a moment. A 5’2” unarmed attacker isn't going to choose a 6’6” victim over a 5’1” victim, right? He's going to attack the easier target. Now let's come back to the reality of violent crime and add back the weapons. Concealed carry presumes it is better to wait until the opponent has drawn his knife or gun and then try to "fix" the situation. It seems a bit foolish to promote the idea that it's better to attempt to stop a violent crime in the fourth stage when you could instead prevent it in the second. A concealed weapon cannot deter an attack at the "interview" stage; it’s completely ineffectual in that role. Open carry is the only method that provides a direct deterrent. Let's say the bad-guy missed the openly carried pistol and holster during the interview stage, and has proceeded to the "positioning" stage. Chances are pretty good he'll see it at some point then, right? Then, let's say the planets have all aligned just so and he, for whatever reason, has begun his attack despite your openly carried sidearm. At this point, the OCer is on level footing with the CCer, the attack has begun. Who has the advantage? Well, I’m going to say that with all things being equal (skill level and equipment) the OCer has a speed of draw advantage over the CCer.

    First One To Be Shot

    There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or "the first one shot" when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened. If the robber walks in and sees that you're armed, his whole plan has encountered an unexpected variable. In bank robberies where he might expect to see an armed guard he will have already factored that possibility into his plan, but only for the armed guard, not for open or concealed carry citizens. No robber robs a bank without at least a rudimentary plan. Nevertheless, being present for a bank robbery is an extremely remote possibility for most of us regardless of our preferred method of handgun carry, so let's go back in the 7-11. If the robber sees someone is armed he is forced to either significantly alter the plan or abort it outright. Robbing is an inherently apprehensive occupation, and one that doesn't respond well to instant modifications. He is not prepared to commit murder when he only planned for larceny. He knows that a petty robbery will not garner the intense police manhunt a murder would. He doesn't know if you're an armed citizen or a police officer and isn't going to take the time to figure it out. Either way, if someone in the 7-11 is unexpectedly armed, how many others might be similarly adorned and where might they be? Does this unexpectedly armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed nearby, someone who is watching right now? Self preservation compels him to abort the plan for one that is less risky. So we see that the logic matches the history; open carriers are not the first ones shot because it doesn’t make sense in any common street crime scenario that they would be. If your personal self protection plan emphasizes "Hollywood" style crimes over the more realistic street mugging, it might be best to stay home.

    Surprise

    Probably the most common condemnation of open carry comes from the armchair tacticians who believe it's better to have the element of surprise in a criminal encounter. Although this was touched on in the previous paragraph about deterrence, I'll expand on it specifically here because there are some important truths you need to consider before you lean too heavily on this false support. Surprise as a defensive tactic is often based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios, and seems to exist only in the minds of concealed carry firearms proponents. The circumstance where several street toughs surround and taunt you for a while before robbing you, like in some Charles Bronson movie, is not realistic; the mugger wants to get in and out as fast as possible. In most cases you will have only seconds to realize what's happening, make a decision, and react. Imagine you're walking along the sidewalk when two gangsta looking teenagers suddenly appear at the corner coming in the opposite direction. You have only seconds to react if their intent was to victimize you. Do you draw your concealed firearm now or wait until there's an actual visible threat? If they are just on their way to church and you pull a gun on them, you are the criminal and you will likely forever lose your firearms rights for such a foolish action. If you don't draw and they pull a knife or pistol when they're just a couple steps away, your only options are draw (if you think you can) or comply. Imagine staring at the shiny blade of a knife being held by a very nervous and violent mugger, three inches from you or your wife's throat and having to decide whether or not you have time to draw from concealment. The element of surprise may not do you any good; in fact the only surprising thing that might happen is that your concealed carry pistol gets taken along with your wallet. The thug will later get a good chuckle with his buddies about how you brought a gun to a knife fight. The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one. What many internet commandos call "defensive surprise" is nothing more than damage control, a last ditch effort to fight your way back out of a dangerous situation. I am not aware of any army that teaches using surprise as a defense against attack. No squad of soldiers goes on patrol with their weapons hidden so that they can "surprise" the enemy should they walk into an ambush.


    It Will Get Stolen

    Another common criticism of open carry is that the firearm itself will be the target of theft, prompting a criminal to attack simply to get the gun from you. Like the previous example of being the first one shot in a robbery, above, this is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence it happens. It also blindly ignores the more obvious fact that anything you possess can make you the target of a crime, be it a car, a watch, or even a female companion (girlfriend, wife, or daughter). Crooks commonly steal for only one of two reasons; to get something you have that they want, or to get something that you have so they can sell it and buy something they want. I don't claim it could never happen; just that it's so remote a possibility that it doesn't warrant drastic alterations to our self defense strategies. If you believe otherwise, leave your wife, children, watch, sunglasses, jewelry, and cell phone at home, hop into your Pinto wagon, and head out to do your thing. Very often, someone critical of open carry will cite some example of a uniformed police officer whose gun was taken by a violent criminal, and yes, this does indeed happen. The argument, however, breaks down when they assume the officer was targeted solely to steal his firearm. What is more likely is that the officer was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. More often, the officer's gun is taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody due to an entirely unrelated matter. However, let's suppose, for argument, that a police officer really was attacked just to get his firearm. What actions did the police department take to prevent it from reoccurring? Did they demand that their officers carry concealed? No, of course not. You should, like the police, prioritize your defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.

    It Scares People

    One other statement against open carry I hear is that it damages public perception of firearms owners, or that by carrying openly we are not being good ambassadors to the public. While there are some people who have a genuine fear of firearms, due either to some horrible past experience or anti-gun indoctrination, the majority of people are either indifferent to them or quite fascinated by them. I've never kept track of the dozens of fellow citizens I've encountered who have marveled at the idea of open carry, but I do know exactly how many have expressed displeasure at it; one. People are scared of many things for many reasons; however, pretending those things do not exist only perpetuates the fear. Someone who is disturbed by open carry is going to be every bit as disturbed by concealed carry. The only effective way to overcome a fear is to come to the intellectual realization that the phobia is based on emotion and not on fact. By being a firsthand witness that a firearm was carried responsibly and peaceably, and wasn't being carried in the commission of a crime, one who was apprehensive about firearms discovers their fear is not fact based, but emotional. Thus, open carry can be a very effectual way of helping to overcome the emotionally based fear of the firearm. After all, you'd be much more likely to believe in ghosts if you saw one rather than if you listened to a ghost story around a campfire. In other words, we give significantly more credibility to the things we experience than we do to the things we hear. The bottom line is that people who don’t, can’t, or haven’t carried openly make this argument. those of us who do so on a regular basis have an entirely different experience.

    I’m Not Comfortable Carrying Openly

    This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual. We all have a comfort zone for any aspect of our lives and we prefer to stay within that comfort zone. We all agree that it's better to be armed and never need the firearm than it is to need it and not have it. There is a point where concealing your firearm becomes so problematic, due to conditions like temperature or comfort, that some choose to either leave it behind or carry in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to draw it quickly. If it takes me five or six seconds to draw my firearm from deep concealment and I had sufficient time before hand to actually do so, I would prefer to use that five or six seconds to avoid the entire encounter. I'm glad we have concealed carry laws in most of the states; it empowers and protects not only us but the general public through the offset deterrent effect. Some of us, however, choose the more direct deterrent effect of open carry.

    Conclusion

    No, open carry is not the be-all-end-all of self-defense any more than concealed carry is. The purpose of this essay is not to convince you to carry a firearm openly, but to merely point out the reasoning I used to determine that it is often the best option for me. If you think otherwise, please feel free to write an essay of your own outlining the reasoning you used. I would suggest that you avoid the intellectual mistake of emphasizing rare or unlikely defense scenarios that many of us will never experience. I believe one should prioritize for the most likely threat, not the least likely threat. I don't put Hollywood style bank robberies high on my threat list because I rarely go into a bank and those types of robberies are very rare themselves. I live in the most crime riddled city in the northwest; the most likely threat here is some young male with a knife or gun trying to carjack me or mug me on the street, in the park, or in a parking lot. With this knowledge I build my personal self-protection plan based on that manner of attack. This may not suit you, especially if you live in Hollywood.

    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  3. #3
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    NewZealandAmerican, can you post a link to this? I'd like to share it with other people, but most of the blogs and forums I frequent do not allow anyone to post a complete article, only exerpts and a link. Thanks
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  4. #4
    Regular Member NewZealandAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb of Provo in UTAH
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    Hi MamaLiberty,

    I forgot to post the link so here it is http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/28643.htmlbut alas it seems no longer active. I can't credit who the author is or who posted it here on OCDO originally, maybe Mike and john could help or someone else who recognizes it.


    (Dion Wood). MY FREEDOM PAGE[/COLOR] with valuable links to ALTERNATIVE MEDIA, Internet Radio shows and other sites to restore our FREEDOM & LIBERTYhttp://www.QRZ.com/db/KB9QFH TELEPHONE: +1(800)808-KIWI that's +1(800)808-5494 Tollfree. "NewZealander By Birth, American By The Grace Of God." See also http://www.facebook.com/NewZealandAmerican & http://RTR.org/NewZealandAmerican IN MEMORY OF OUR GOD, OUR RELIGION, AND FREEDOM, AND OUR PEACE, OUR WIVES, AND OUR CHILDREN" (The Title Of LIBERTY)

  5. #5
    Regular Member NewZealandAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb of Provo in UTAH
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    Ahh thanks so much BookMan for cleaning up my post and making it look more presentable and sharp. I should have taken a couple min more to make it nice because this is important information for all to see.

    So far I think this is the best comparison I have seen written for Open Carry vs Concealed carry


    Yay!!! THIS IS ALSO MY 100th post!!!! I love the website and want to thank Mike, John andeveryone here on OCDO for all you do for the fight for FREEDOM, LIBERTY and theIN-ALIENABLE RIGHT to carry a gun in all 50 states without a permit or license! EVEN if the Second Amendment could be repealed that does not change one iota your RIGHT to own and carry a gun PERIOD! :celebrate
    (Dion Wood). MY FREEDOM PAGE[/COLOR] with valuable links to ALTERNATIVE MEDIA, Internet Radio shows and other sites to restore our FREEDOM & LIBERTYhttp://www.QRZ.com/db/KB9QFH TELEPHONE: +1(800)808-KIWI that's +1(800)808-5494 Tollfree. "NewZealander By Birth, American By The Grace Of God." See also http://www.facebook.com/NewZealandAmerican & http://RTR.org/NewZealandAmerican IN MEMORY OF OUR GOD, OUR RELIGION, AND FREEDOM, AND OUR PEACE, OUR WIVES, AND OUR CHILDREN" (The Title Of LIBERTY)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    The correct answer is "Whatever you prefer".

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    NewZealandAmerican,

    I'm an old guy...blue font color was fine. So is black.



    -- John D.

    P.S.Similar to your comment re: the 2nd Amendment, even if there were no crime (ZERO -- which would never happen I'd wager), it still"does not change one iota yourRIGHT toown and carry a firearm PERIOD."

    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  8. #8
    Regular Member NewZealandAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb of Provo in UTAH
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    NewZealandAmerican,

    I'm an old guy...blue font color was fine. So is black.



    -- John D.

    P.S.Similar to your comment re: the 2nd Amendment, even if there were no crime (ZERO -- which would never happen I'd wager), it still"does not change one iota yourRIGHT toown and carry a firearm PERIOD."
    Amen!!!:celebrate
    (Dion Wood). MY FREEDOM PAGE[/COLOR] with valuable links to ALTERNATIVE MEDIA, Internet Radio shows and other sites to restore our FREEDOM & LIBERTYhttp://www.QRZ.com/db/KB9QFH TELEPHONE: +1(800)808-KIWI that's +1(800)808-5494 Tollfree. "NewZealander By Birth, American By The Grace Of God." See also http://www.facebook.com/NewZealandAmerican & http://RTR.org/NewZealandAmerican IN MEMORY OF OUR GOD, OUR RELIGION, AND FREEDOM, AND OUR PEACE, OUR WIVES, AND OUR CHILDREN" (The Title Of LIBERTY)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    I prefer CC so I don't get hassled by businesses, especially if I'm in a hurry and just want to get down to business.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Eight Mile, , USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    I prefer CC so I don't get hassled by businesses, especially if I'm in a hurry and just want to get down to business.
    If the threat of harassment did not exist (both from public, and LEO) I would probably OC.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Co., ,
    Posts
    138

    Post imported post

    NewZealandAmerican wrote:
    Ahh thanks so much BookMan for cleaning up my post and making it look more presentable and sharp. I should have taken a couple min more to make it nice because this is important information for all to see.

    So far I think this is the best comparison I have seen written for Open Carry vs Concealed carry


    Yay!!! THIS IS ALSO MY 100th post!!!! I love the website and want to thank Mike, John andeveryone here on OCDO for all you do for the fight for FREEDOM, LIBERTY and theIN-ALIENABLE RIGHT to carry a gun in all 50 states without a permit or license! EVEN if the Second Amendment could be repealed that does not change one iota your RIGHT to own and carry a gun PERIOD! :celebrate
    I feel that I MUST make a correction here as to the use of the word inalienable vs. unalienable on this point because the difference in the meaning of these two words in very significant and has ramifications far greater than most would realize. First we have the definition of unalienable...the word actually used by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence.

    UNALIENABLE;
    The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
    Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

    "UNALIENABLE; incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

    You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

    Now let us look at the word inalienable, the word the good Judge uses in his presentation.

    INALIENABLE rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

    You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

    Please notice that unalienable rights CANNOT be surrendered because they are inherently given by our creator and thus part of natural law. On the other hand inalienable rights are NOT inherent, and CAN be surrendered by the one who "holds" the rights. It is also stated by definition that inalienable rights can be "alienated" or in other words given or taken away by a government.

    When one looks at the difference between these two words one can readily see the very real danger of using the word inalienable when discussing the intentions of our founding fathers. We MUST be careful in the use of words here, fort words do have power and if we allow this simple slip of words to go unchecked the progressives will do their best to twist it against us. They are EVIL and will use anything they deem is "useful" to advance their agenda! We already know that they wish to change history and again I feel it is IMPERATIVE that we present the fact accurately.

    So now lets look at the Declaration as it is written..........
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

    Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. Obama and the progressives in power wish to change this fact!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    smttysmth02gt wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    I prefer CC so I don't get hassled by businesses, especially if I'm in a hurry and just want to get down to business.
    If the threat of harassment did not exist (both from public, and LEO) I would probably OC.
    I would, too. It's especially annoying when I'm in a hurry, and I just want to get in and get out. I've OCed before and I couldn't stand being stopped and asked 50 questions about my firearm, and then being asked to leave by managers. (That's only happened twice of the 10 or so times I have OCed in a public business) but it's still annoying nonetheless, especially if I need to be there for whatever reason. Although I've never been hassled by the police.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Eight Mile, , USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    smttysmth02gt wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    I prefer CC so I don't get hassled by businesses, especially if I'm in a hurry and just want to get down to business.
    If the threat of harassment did not exist (both from public, and LEO) I would probably OC.
    I would, too. It's especially annoying when I'm in a hurry, and I just want to get in and get out. I've OCed before and I couldn't stand being stopped and asked 50 questions about my firearm, and then being asked to leave by managers. (That's only happened twice of the 10 or so times I have OCed in a public business) but it's still annoying nonetheless, especially if I need to be there for whatever reason. Although I've never been hassled by the police.
    Well local LE here does not know that it is LEGAL. Even if they did know, the biggest problem is a disorderly conduct charge, which is complete BS since you can fart in public and get that charge.

    I think there should be a sticky thread under each state on this site, detailing what businesses frown upon OC, and also cite examples of bad experiences OC'ing. Sort of like a growing list of places that do not want your business.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    I agree. The Washington forum has a sticky thread that has a list of businesses like that on it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Eight Mile, , USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    I also forgot to mention, this is a very good article. I've posted it on the shooting club forum, and sent to my usual "gun buddies" via email.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    smttysmth02gt wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    I prefer CC so I don't get hassled by businesses, especially if I'm in a hurry and just want to get down to business.
    If the threat of harassment did not exist (both from public, and LEO) I would probably OC.
    I would, too. It's especially annoying when I'm in a hurry, and I just want to get in and get out. I've OCed before and I couldn't stand being stopped and asked 50 questions about my firearm, and then being asked to leave by managers. (That's only happened twice of the 10 or so times I have OCed in a public business) but it's still annoying nonetheless, especially if I need to be there for whatever reason. Although I've never been hassled by the police.
    I have carried openly in Washington for the past 6 months. I have NEVER been asked to leave anywhere. I have only a handfull of times even been asked anything, and mostly what I am carrying.

    Aaron either your are BS or you look like a thug. 99.99% of people do not notice a firearm.
    Live Free or Die!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    smttysmth02gt wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    I prefer CC so I don't get hassled by businesses, especially if I'm in a hurry and just want to get down to business.
    If the threat of harassment did not exist (both from public, and LEO) I would probably OC.
    I would, too. It's especially annoying when I'm in a hurry, and I just want to get in and get out. I've OCed before and I couldn't stand being stopped and asked 50 questions about my firearm, and then being asked to leave by managers. (That's only happened twice of the 10 or so times I have OCed in a public business) but it's still annoying nonetheless, especially if I need to be there for whatever reason. Although I've never been hassled by the police.
    I have carried openly in Washington for the past 6 months. I have NEVER been asked to leave anywhere. I have only a handfull of times even been asked anything, and mostly what I am carrying.

    Aaron either your are BS or you look like a thug. 99.99% of people do not notice a firearm.
    Speak for yourself. I have no reason to make up stories like that. Just sharing my experiences. I have been asked to leave by both Walmart and Target. Not recently, considering I don't open carry anymore.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    .

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    smttysmth02gt wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    I prefer CC so I don't get hassled by businesses, especially if I'm in a hurry and just want to get down to business.
    If the threat of harassment did not exist (both from public, and LEO) I would probably OC.
    I would, too. It's especially annoying when I'm in a hurry, and I just want to get in and get out. I've OCed before and I couldn't stand being stopped and asked 50 questions about my firearm, and then being asked to leave by managers. (That's only happened twice of the 10 or so times I have OCed in a public business) but it's still annoying nonetheless, especially if I need to be there for whatever reason. Although I've never been hassled by the police.
    I have carried openly in Washington for the past 6 months. I have NEVER been asked to leave anywhere. I have only a handfull of times even been asked anything, and mostly what I am carrying.

    Aaron either your are BS or you look like a thug. 99.99% of people do not notice a firearm.
    Speak for yourself. I have no reason to make up stories like that. Just sharing my experiences. I have been asked to leave by both Walmart and Target. Not recently, considering I don't open carry anymore.
    Then I find it very interesting at least. What do you carry that would be noticed?
    Live Free or Die!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    A Ruger P95 and a Taser C2.

    I was asked a couple of questions regarding if I was an off duty officer. I responded with "Nope!" and continued walking. Then he then politely told me that they do not allow citizen's whom aren't law enforcement to carry a "loaded firearm" in the store. I didn't argue about the law with him, because I just wanted to pick up a few things. I asked if I could continue to check out, and he allowed me to, but informed me not to bring the weapon back in, as it may "startle" people. This was 2-3 years ago. Not sure exactly when.

    Target, by the way.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    And I can assure you I'm no "thug"
    Maybe they just thought you were a Cubs fan but thought it easier to just object to your OC sidearm as the reason to ask you to leave... :P
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Now that's a theory I've yet to ponder... you may be on to something..

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    365

    Post imported post

    Very well written but it was already posted here a couple years ago:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum6/12053.html

  24. #24
    Regular Member NewZealandAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb of Provo in UTAH
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    OCinColorado wrote:
    NewZealandAmerican wrote:
    Ahh thanks so much BookMan for cleaning up my post and making it look more presentable and sharp. I should have taken a couple min more to make it nice because this is important information for all to see.

    So far I think this is the best comparison I have seen written for Open Carry vs Concealed carry


    Yay!!! THIS IS ALSO MY 100th post!!!! I love the website and want to thank Mike, John andeveryone here on OCDO for all you do for the fight for FREEDOM, LIBERTY and theIN-ALIENABLE RIGHT to carry a gun in all 50 states without a permit or license! EVEN if the Second Amendment could be repealed that does not change one iota your RIGHT to own and carry a gun PERIOD! :celebrate
    I feel that I MUST make a correction here as to the use of the word inalienable vs. unalienable on this point because the difference in the meaning of these two words in very significant and has ramifications far greater than most would realize. First we have the definition of unalienable...the word actually used by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence.

    UNALIENABLE;
    The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
    Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

    "UNALIENABLE; incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

    You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

    Now let us look at the word inalienable, the word the good Judge uses in his presentation.

    INALIENABLE rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

    You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

    Please notice that unalienable rights CANNOT be surrendered because they are inherently given by our creator and thus part of natural law. On the other hand inalienable rights are NOT inherent, and CAN be surrendered by the one who "holds" the rights. It is also stated by definition that inalienable rights can be "alienated" or in other words given or taken away by a government.

    When one looks at the difference between these two words one can readily see the very real danger of using the word inalienable when discussing the intentions of our founding fathers. We MUST be careful in the use of words here, fort words do have power and if we allow this simple slip of words to go unchecked the progressives will do their best to twist it against us. They are EVIL and will use anything they deem is "useful" to advance their agenda! We already know that they wish to change history and again I feel it is IMPERATIVE that we present the fact accurately.

    So now lets look at the Declaration as it is written..........
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

    Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. Obama and the progressives in power wish to change this fact!
    Thankyou for bringing this to our attention. I have heard that there is a big difference in both words but i didn't take the time to find out which means which. This is very important to know the right words and exact meanings especially when it comes to law! Thanks so much because it is so important!!!
    (Dion Wood). MY FREEDOM PAGE[/COLOR] with valuable links to ALTERNATIVE MEDIA, Internet Radio shows and other sites to restore our FREEDOM & LIBERTYhttp://www.QRZ.com/db/KB9QFH TELEPHONE: +1(800)808-KIWI that's +1(800)808-5494 Tollfree. "NewZealander By Birth, American By The Grace Of God." See also http://www.facebook.com/NewZealandAmerican & http://RTR.org/NewZealandAmerican IN MEMORY OF OUR GOD, OUR RELIGION, AND FREEDOM, AND OUR PEACE, OUR WIVES, AND OUR CHILDREN" (The Title Of LIBERTY)

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    marcs-5 wrote:
    Another clear and cogent argument that is not based on emotion at all.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •