ak47 and ar15 pistols

imported post

ItTakesAWolf wrote:

I have a good feeling that your not even trying to understand what where saying...you just have some idea that everybody just needs to be grabbed, shaken and screamed at and some how thats gonna make them understand that people with guns arnt scary...you just forget one thing.

Click to expand...

I understand precisely what you are saying. I have interpreted the meaning behind your commentary, as well as the implied purpose behind the same, and simply come to the conclusion that your response, is entirely emotive, and your reasoning for implying that one must be "showboating" is entirely emotive as well.

I never implied to shake, or scream at anybody. That would be counterproductive. Indeed as counterproductive as shaking and screaming at people who elect to exercise their rights how they see fit, and not how you see fit.

Please take note that I even implied peaceable demonstration of carrying one of these "showboating" firearms in a prior statement.

ItTakesAWolf wrote:

THE PEOPLE THAT ARE NERVOUS AROUND GUNS ARE STILL PEOPLE, AND THEY STILL DESERVE RESPECT... they are fellow Americans... if where going to make progress and expand our rights we need them on board.

so the

"F you, ill do what I want, I dont care what you think, you can kiss my a**"

attitude isnt gonna get us too far

Click to expand...

I am so very sorry you feel that being "nervous" is a reason to trample other peoples rights. I am not saying to holster a firearm, and blatantly trample around town like a hillbilly in heat. Got that?

I am simply saying that the absolute lack of any sort of meaningful presentation of these types of firearms automatically excludes them from the whole "open carry" movement, and by that same token, relegates them to "different" or "scary" status.

Which you substantiate every time you perform telepathy, and tell us what purpose a person elected to carry a AR based pistol for. Obvious "showboating", correct?

If not to showboat, then what plausible reason can you equate all the vilification to, in regards to demonizing the carry of such a firearm?

Appearance?

Better keep those firearms under wraps! Wouldn't want to show people that they are also peaceably carried, by some of the nicest people you could meet.

That would be bad. Right?

ItTakesAWolf wrote:

and WHO CARES ABOUT THE BALLISTIC DEBATE.

I dont care if that gun is chamber in 22lr

THATS NOT THE POINT

Click to expand...

The "ballistic debate" is commonly used by other "firearms advocates" to lend credulity to the idea that "carrying a .223 pistol is bad, mmmk!". Perhaps that portion of the conversation means nothing to you, I don't really care. it has presence in the debate itself.

So, what is the point? That the populace sees one of the most utilized and life-saving firearms in US History, and automatically equates it with villainous activity?

That's a pretty good point. So why don't we carry them, peaceably, respectably, and safely amongst our cities and towns to vindicate them. Or, is "stay in the closet" the right way to do it?

ItTakesAWolf wrote:

AND ANYWAY

IF THE GUN IS IN .45, then why not carry a hi cap .45 pistol for the same effect but its not as menacing

if its in .223 and you claim its no more effective then .45....

THEN WHY NOT JUST CARRY A .45 PISTOL???

Click to expand...

Oh beautiful! Great idea!

Let's not remove the vilifying stereotype unfairly attached to the EBR derived firearms, let's instead place them in the closet because people have been brainwashed to believe they are "menacing". That way, in the future, any firearms advocate who decides to wear one, whether a laughable, lovable, law-abiding guy or not, it will be cause for panic and concern!

Why not carry a .45 pistol?

Instead of allowing people to carry what they like, let's instead regulate each other and be unsupportive and hypocritical.

Please give me a list of your firearms, so I may dictate to you which ones are:

A.) Not "Menacing".
B.) Effective
C.) The best for your protection

Your last comment there troubles me greatly.



DeepDiver,

My comments were not particularly directed towards you, and I apologize for not clarifying!

I understand your position, but I am simultaneously interjecting that sweeping these types of firearms under the rug is not acceptable either. It is wholly supportive of anti ideology.

My argument is that there is a clear, concise statement in the 2nd Amendment, in that at the root of all the firearms laws, it is nothing more than blatant infringement. Lending credibility, as firearms enthusiasts and more importantly, RTKBA advocates, to the idea that a firearm is "menacing" is not really appropriate, and does come off substantially as supportive to anti-type theology.



Using the "social standard" for what is acceptable is erroneous. I understand that , erroneous as it may be, that it is present.

I simply disagree that "sweeping it under the rug" is the appropriate solution. In fact, in doing so, it's almost as if one were as I stated, being thrown under the societal bus. Not even by those who are against them. By their own brothers and sisters.

Fratricide at its worst.

We will not all agree on all points, but I can hardly think that blatantly evading any of the stereotypes thrown at firearms will be ultimately helpful.

imported post

slowfiveoh: One other thing I will throw out there which I touched on indirectly. You show that you live in WA state. You can walk into a court house and they have to provide you a lock box for your sidearm. Carry is fully preempted. You can carry in every city park. You can carry on public transportation. You have few restrictions on where you carry OC or CC being pretty much only restricted from court rooms, jails and music festivals. You can get a CC at 21.

In MO, we have a list of places we can't carry CC (some only restricted without special permission) including church, court house, gov't owned property that is posted, gov't meetings, stadiums that hold 2,000 or more people to name a few. OC in those places? Depends on the city and county ordinances and is generally a no as most OC ordinances either outright ban it or creates restrictions that mirror CC. Heck, carrying on a bus of any type in MO is a felony. Good bye public transportation option. We have no preemption although we have thought we were going to get there the last 2 years. I can't legally OC just outside my house. Three miles away I can OC legally. I could OC at my wife's old house with a CCW, but 100 yards away across the street I would go to jail. Two miles away I could OC without a CCW. You have to be 23 to obtain a CC (hopefully to be fixed this legislative session).

What I am trying to point out is that where your state is with firearm rights is very different than many other states. What may not be any big deal there and not effect your ongoing expansion of 2A rights, eg carrying an AR pistol, could be devastating to delicate efforts other places if one cell phone movie clip got played by one news outlet showing the dangers of OC and "assault pistols" near your children at the local Dairy Queen. [ETA- Not my interpretation of such an event but rather giving an example of how the media would likely spin such a story]

Does that make more sense?

Our starting points for coming into this conversation are very different just on the above bases. We have 12 gold star OC states. 7 essentially no-OC states. Another 4-5 "oc friendly" or licensed OC states that are, at least with a CC license, very close to gold star OC. That leaves around half the country in which we are in the midst of fighting many of the battles WA gun rights advocates have already won for its citizens.

I am just trying to get across that OC of such sidearms IS counterproductive in many places. Probably not too much so where you are. Definitely so around here.

imported post

I understand very well the different spectrums and social climates. I am a recent Washingtonian, earning my evergreen firs after moving from...dun dun dun

California.

I have actively partaken in quite a few "demonstrations" in California, for a lot of the corrupt policies that go on in that state, and what it all comes down to in the end, is that it is a pretty liberal Democratic climate (not a punch to those who are Liberal Democrats, BUT, your party has definitely made the most anti-gun propositions!).

The fear here, the fear there, it's all still irrational fear.

It is quite literally like a massive brainwashing has occurred across this nation, and as odds would have it, every state and it's respective history reacted differently.

My point is that you can't substantiate how beneficial firearms are to society as a whole, if you can't even present them. This should not just be limited to pocket-sized pea-shooters either. That's not fair on the whole.

I am betting the antis have banked on this for years, and this is another reason they do not like people walking around and about, peaceably showing that citizens can indeed be prepared to defend themselves without mass bloodshed or whatever other hyperbole and unfounded mental diarrhea they like to claim is inevitable.

PLR or 1911. Who cares?

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

I understand very well the different spectrums and social climates. I am a recent Washingtonian, earning my evergreen firs after moving from...dun dun dun

California.

I have actively partaken in quite a few "demonstrations" in California, for a lot of the corrupt policies that go on in that state, and what it all comes down to in the end, is that it is a pretty liberal Democratic climate (not a punch to those who are Liberal Democrats, BUT, your party has definitely made the most anti-gun propositions!).

The fear here, the fear there, it's all still irrational fear.

It is quite literally like a massive brainwashing has occurred across this nation, and as odds would have it, every state and it's respective history reacted differently.

My point is that you can't substantiate how beneficial firearms are to society as a whole, if you can't even present them. This should not just be limited to pocket-sized pea-shooters either. That's not fair on the whole.

I am betting the antis have banked on this for years, and this is another reason they do not like people walking around and about, peaceably showing that citizens can indeed be prepared to defend themselves without mass bloodshed or whatever other hyperbole and unfounded mental diarrhea they like to claim is inevitable.

PLR or 1911. Who cares?

Click to expand...

Well I guess its up to you now, to fix it all...

you seem to have all the answers.

get to it.

imported post

ItTakesAWolf wrote:

Well I guess its up to you now, to fix it all...

you seem to have all the answers.

get to it.

Click to expand...

Sure!

I just haven't decided on what to carry yet, or saved up the funds to do so.

Work + full time school + daddydom.

Know what I mean?


The better response though is, how many buses are you, and other "RTKBA/2A advocates" going to throw me under once I do start open carrying a PLR or AR derived pistol?

That's a pretty good question, eh?

imported post

No person serious about carrying for self defense would carry one of those toys.

If you don't know why, you owe it to yourself to get some professional training, preferably with force-on-force from a good school. A AR/AK pistol is not the best tool for the job due to its inability to be ealily deployed, aimed and operated, particularly with one hand in close quarters, and as such is more of a liability than anything else.

Besides being worthless as a SD tool, it will make you look foolish and un-serious. If we seek to normalize OC we should OC normally. Leave the toys and fantasy gear at home.

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

snip
My point is that you can't substantiate how beneficial firearms are to society as a whole, if you can't even present them. This should not just be limited to pocket-sized pea-shooters either. That's not fair on the whole.

Click to expand...

It's not limited to and nobody is suggesting it be limited to just certain guns. And "fair" doesn't even enter into it. Look, I don't wear the same thing I wear out hiking to the office. I don't wear my office clothes to work out at the gym. Middle class men used to wear a suit even for a casual evening out at the equivalent of a dinner at Applebee's. More recently, even when I was in early grade school, there was a dress code and boys were required to wear slacks, not jeans, and leather shoes, not athletic shoes except to gym class.

While it is certainly my "right" to wear whatever I want to as long as it does not run afoul of indecency laws, not every type of clothing or outfit is appropriate for every setting. Clothing norms and mores have changed over the years with us becoming a much more casually dressed nation over the last 45 years. And certainly there are people who wear bizarre clothing and violate societal norms daily. I would hazard to say that the majority of people interpret that as attention seeking.

So you can daily dress like a 17th century pirate in Kansas City and people will certainly notice you. You can wear jeans and a t-shirt to a "business casual" dinner function. And it is certainly your right to do so. However, you are going to get a lot of notice and attention, a good portion of it probably negative although most of that will likely be behind your back and you'll never know all the negative consequences of your choice.

This is much the same thing. Absolutely you have a right to carry what you damn well please and I personally don't care if you want to carry a Browning 1919 with your wife walking next to you carrying the case of belt fed ammo. However, even if legal, the public is not going to respond favorably and although I don't care I'll still think it's stupid.

Part of OC most places currently is being a good ambassador for our cause although it is certainly not a legal or moral obligation. It is something that most of us at OCDO choose to do and certainly not all of us agree on what this entails.

Mores and norms do not change over night. Short of cataclysmic societal upheaval it is a gradual shift. It took over 50 years for us to gradually go from a coat and tie society to a cargo shorts and Birkenstocks society. It took over 50 years of encroaching 2A rights restrictions to even start turning the tide back the other direction and some places there has not only been no movement back but a tightening of the iron fist.

OC for most of the country is the leading edge of pushing societal mores and norms in reestablishing our 2A rights. But push too hard and fast and there will be a backlash. Gov't school dress codes didn't jump from requiring skirts or dresses for high school girls to allowing Daisy Dukes and tube tops. And as kids kept pushing further and further out on edge of societal dressing norms in many places they found such a backlash with a re-establishment or tightening of dress codes. You can only push society so far, so fast and admittedly there have to be people to push further than others to excite real change. The danger is that you don't always know which way that excitement is going to break.

And yes, it may seem odd that I am using clothing as a parallel to 2A rights but in some ways it is applicable. Clothing choices are generally protected under the 1A as freedom of expression. Clothing restrictions are more allowable towards minors such as in schools than against adults but such restrictions are not absolute as some successful court challenges to school dress codes have shown. Clothing is a part of us that others freely see and something that effects most people's first impressions of us. People often use clothing choices to make broad generalizations of others as to what group, social/economic class and even profession belong. Not necessarily accurate, but it is still normal human behavior.

I think our sidearm choices are "read" similarly by many people. Carrying an AR pistol may not be as ostentatious as Marilyn Manson's outfit choice out on the town in L.A. however, it will be noticed and differently internalized by Joe Public than a Glock 19 in a Tucker Leather OWB holster. You can not like it, think it is unfair or whatever, but that is the reality.

You are free to choose what you wear and where you wear it be it clothes or a sidearm, however, you have no say in how others perceive it or react to it.

imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:

No person serious about carrying for self defense would carry one of those toys.

If you don't know why, you owe it to yourself to get some professional training, preferably with force-on-force from a good school. A AR/AK pistol is not the best tool for the job due to its inability to be ealily deployed, aimed and operated, particularly with one hand in close quarters, and as such is more of a liability than anything else.

Besides being worthless as a SD tool, it will make you look foolish and un-serious. If we seek to normalize OC we should OC normally. Leave the toys and fantasy gear at home.

Click to expand...

So, can they be carried as backup to a "normal" gun?

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

...You are free to choose what you wear and where you wear it be it clothes or a sidearm, however, you have no say in how others perceive it or react to it...

Click to expand...

I can sum up your well thought out reply by simply posting this excerpt and replying to it.

While I believe your end assessment here is correct, it is not my, or anybody elses responsibility to cater to other peoples feelings.

I cannot control their perception, no matter how unfounded. Correct.
I cannot control their reaction, no matter how unfounded. I agree here too.

However, none of that should affect my right to carry.

Pa. Patriot,

Thank you for your insight.

I am sorry to see that you think of an AR, or any firearm for that matter as a "toy". That is rather disconcerting.

In regards to your comment about training, I agree, and think it is most awesome that the majority of people on this site seek to excel at their firearms competency.

I, myself, will be looking to go to a good school in an undetermined future date, at one of the more prominent training institutions (Front Sight? Anybody been there?). For now, all I have is my combat experience and training, which includes being a trainer on:

M16A2/M4
M203
MK19 Mod 3

as well as a range safety.

Speaking of Open Carry "deterrence factor", I could not see why an AK or AR based pistol would not have very good "deterrence".

Just some thoughts.

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

Sure!

I just haven't decided on what to carry yet, or saved up the funds to do so.

Work + full time school + daddydom.

Know what I mean?


The better response though is, how many buses are you, and other "RTKBA/2A advocates" going to throw me under once I do start open carrying a PLR or AR derived pistol?

That's a pretty good question, eh?

Click to expand...

Wait, you do not carry. That's interesting. :lol:

imported post

RussP wrote:

Wait, you do not carry. That's interesting. :lol:

Click to expand...

A weak man follows another around trying to discredit him.

Pretty pathetic if I do say so myself.


My response was in regards to a AR platform firearm. What I carry at the moment is none of your business.

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

RussP wrote:

Wait, you do not carry. That's interesting. :lol:

Click to expand...

A weak man follows another around trying to discredit him.

Pretty pathetic if I do say so myself.


My response was in regards to a AR platform firearm. What I carry at the moment is none of your business.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, I did misunderstand your statement.

As to following you, Leonard already tried that line.

Actually, I am deciding on whether to build an AR based pistol or an AR based SBR. Figured while I was on OCDO I would see who says what about pistols.

I could care less about what you carry, just that you do.

imported post

The PLR looks nice, but I prefer higher quality pistols than what Kel-Tec typically makes. I am worried about quality in that regard.

The Bushmaster is nice, and is on the list.

I am still shopping around. It has to be a good mix of quality, and a bit of a bargain.

EDIT:

I was going to just let it go, but I would like to point out that this is the first time you chimed in, in this conversation, and the sole point was to attempt to vilify or discredit me.

It is what it is, regardless of what pretty picture you try to paint.

C'est la vie!

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

...I was going to just let it go, but I would like to point out that this is the first time you chimed in, in this conversation, and the sole point was to attempt to vilify or discredit me.

It is what it is, regardless of what pretty picture you try to paint.

C'est la vie!

Click to expand...

Well, not true...and I did admit I misunderstood your comment.

Why would I want to discredit you? Some of what you post is really good.

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with carrying an ar or ak pistol. With drum magazines they hold a lot of rounds. Plus you can get ar pistols in a avariety of calibers 9mm, 5.7, .40s&w, .22lr, maybe .308 or 6.8 or 6.5 too.

Next thing you know people will say carrying a sig 556, plr-16, ak type pistol, bushmaster carbon, thompson pistol, ar pistol, or a puma bounty hunter pistol is show boating...

puma bounty hunter

 

Click to expand...

I'm actually planning on getting one of those Pumas for OCing around town when I get the money. I do live in a little country town though. If I want to carry in the city or whatever, I'm going to be a little more discreet with what I carry. Maybe that Ruger GP100 I'm planning on getting.
Cause lets face it, all of those may be pistols. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that, but they do look like rifles. Besides, carrying that Thompson around with a drum mag in it would be both awkward to carry, and kind of silly for everyday carry. I'm not going to bash you for carrying your Draco pistol around. To each their own. Hell, if I had the money, I'd sling a Barret over my shoulder every so often for shits and giggles. Now that would be an awkward gun to carry around, seeing as it's like 4 feet long and weighs somewhere over 30 pounds. It's 33.8 pounds, I believe. Sans accessories. Wow, wall of text here. I'm done for now.
~Nikki~

imported post

cabbitone wrote:

snip
While I agree uninformed individuals might be uncomfortable with it and may even be scared of it does that make it wrong?
snip
I should have the right to exercise my 2A rights the same as some one wanting to strap on a 1911 or a Beretta 92. Heck by the "its scary" logic or its a military weapon, I could argue that either of them(1911 or 92) scare me because I think you're going to go do GOD knows what with a "military" type firearm.

Click to expand...

Just to keep from arguing about something that isn't in disagreement: No one in this thread has argued that any gun should be banned, that carrying any particular gun(s) is wrong and both ItTakesaWolf and I have stated that it is certainly your right to carry whatever the heck you want to carry.

The disagreement comes as to whether OC of the AK47/AR15 pistols or other more exotic/unusual sidearms in many places is counter productive to our purposes of normalizing OC and expanding the acknowledgment of our constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

I think we also can all agree that there are at least some times and places (e.g. in back country, at the range) that there is nothing problematic for OC/2A expansion by carrying one of these.

So really, even more pointedly, the main disagreement is whether OC of such sidearms to Little Suzy's birthday party with the neighborhood kids at the local Pizza Hut on a Saturday afternoon in suburban America in a state/city where OC is legal but still not really accepted and legislative battles are raging to expand our carry rights, is counterproductive to OCDO's stated purpose and cause. Some of us think it is counterproductive whereas others disagree.

The other disagreement which Pa Patriot much better and pointedly than I addressed, is whether these are even good SD weapons in the first place.

imported post

The true interpretation deepdiver, is that AR or AK platform pistols are not exotic. They are not "unique". They are simply "arms", as laid before us in the Constitution.

The horrible backlash here, is that by applying the nomenclatures to these firearms, you justify every term the antis have ever used to describe them. In fact, they may one day try an alternate assault based on the adjectives you used to describe them.

Heck maybe one day we will see an "exotic pistol" tax.

The very bottom line is that it is not yours, or my place, or anybody elses for that matter, to tell a law abiding American citizen what he can or cannot, or should, or should not carry. Any vilification that point is simply justification that while upholding the 2nd, or claiming to, you simultaneously feel it is justifiable to kowtow to "societal acceptance", which should not impact law. Law should be impacted by votes, or by legislators listening intently to their constituents.

We should not judge a persons inalienable right, nor applaud or lend credibility to said judgment by a society that follows fads, trends, or stereotypes. Unless you believe a populace hellbent on buying a 5000+lb SUV on the basis of being "cool" or the, "in thing", is capable of rendering judgment that is both intelligent and sound of mind, in total pursuit of meaningful justice? Nah didn't think so. Me either.

This is one of the many purposes for law being such a divisive factor in our nation. It should not ride on the back of social trends. It is the dividing line that as clearly as possible determines whether an action is "wrong" or "right", and it has two centuries of practice behind it.

What you are really seeing right now, and many are "justifying", I might add, is that based on appearance alone, it is appropriate to pursue the vindication of any pistol on the basis of "shall not be infringed", so long as it is not an AR or AK derivative.

As destructive as your prophecy is of them being "Odd and out of the norm. Exotic. Weird. Strange. Toys.", the lack of inclusion is similarly, unfairly, lambasting them.

Whether it is admitted or not, justifying the exclusion of AR and AK pistol owners from open carrying on the basis of appearance and "social reaction", is justifying the infringement to the 2nd Amendment.

It is literally like claiming to be part of the freedom movement many years ago for African-Americans in this country, but simultaneously claiming that those from the Pygmy Tribe who chose to migrate, are not included in the pursuit of freedom. Solely on the basis of "being shorter".

Might charming, delightful law abiding citizens who choose to carry AR or AK pistols as they go about their day, be just as vindicating of the completely unfounded stereotypes that surround open carriers with "properly holstered .380's" on their hip?

Nah. Let's just call them useless toys, and accept that people think they're machine guns. Who cares what they can be chambered in? We should force people to carry "normal" firearms.

That is the best policy.

Right?


As to the merit of the AR or AK derived pistols for personal protection purposes, I think that is a great conversation I would be willing to have.

As to anything else in life, they have their pros and cons.

EDIT:

Just out of curiosity. How many of you would be just fine with government allowing all other firearms, with no concerns or regulation whatsoever, with the exception of heavy taxation on AR and AK based pistols?

Any takers?

I am willing to bet a few of you are completely, totally fine with that.

imported post

"Just out of curiosity. How many of you would be just fine with government allowing all other firearms, with no concerns or regulation whatsoever, with the exception of heavy taxation on AR and AK based pistols?

Any takers?

I am willing to bet a few of you are completely, totally fine with that."








Dude, you are looking for a fight.

NO ONE HERE HAS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT MAKING THEM ILLEGAL
NO ONE HAS TALKED ABOUT REGULATING THEM
NO ONE HAS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT WANTING THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN
NO ONE SAID "HANDGUNS=GOOD.... EVERYTHING ELSE=BAD, PERIOD"

EVERY TIME ANYTHING LIKE THAT HAS COME UP IT HAS BEEN >>>YOU<<< BRINGING IT UP.

we love the right to carry

we dont want people to care

we love the second amendment


STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE YOUR A SECOND AMENDMENT WARRIOR AND WHERE ALL TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS!!!!

we, unlike you, realize that to expand our rights...WE NEED TO PLAY A BIT OF BALL WITH THE ANTIS.

carrying guns like that RIGHT NOW is the equivalent of hitting home runs for the Brady campaign.

imported post

Slowfiveoh - Firstly, I was just trying to clarify the disagreement, not rehash what has already been said.

Secondly, you repeatedly come back to the point that no one should tell someone what they can or cannot carry -- something that nobody in this thread has disagreed with.

Thirdly, I can certainly easily make an argument that AR/AK pistols are exotic firearms (although I only obliquely referred to them as such) using the common understanding of the word the same way a Ferrari or Lamborghini is referred to as an exotic car - doesn't mean they don't exist or you aren't going to see one or that there is anything wrong with having one, but rather than they are uncommon compared to the general population of that thing be it firearms or cars, etc. I remember 20 some years ago when Glocks were new, unusual and uncommon and considered exotic by many - "What? You got one of those exotic plastic guns? Wow!"

Fourthly, there is no "exclusion" suggested or requested. I don't dress up in camo pants, a shirt that says, F*** America, combat boots, a foot high purple mohawk and 50 piercings and run around OCing a neon yellow pistol in a neon pink holster. No one asked me not to do that or threatened to exclude me if I do. I actually have friends who might think that was pretty cool. Do and should I or anyone have the right to do that? Absolutely. But I can just sort of figure out that isn't going to help me win over my state senator when asking for him to vote yes on a pro-2A bill.

Fifthly, in some ways I think you are being intentionally obtuse about some of this as from reading your posts for the last 6 months I think you are far smarter than some of your arguments are becoming. You have even started putting words in my mouth when repeating your points. Saying essentially "It's not fair" is predominately an emotional argument.

Lastly, I have no emotion involved in this as I have said ad nauseum. The issue is reality. Would/could/should doesn't matter. It is a fact that many, likely a majority, of people in many places are going to react differently to an AR/AK OC than a Sig Sauer P229 Elite. That isn't even the argument (or if it is, then you might as well argue that the sky is purple and brussel sprouts taste like chocolate).

The only point of disagreement is whether that carry leading to that difference of reaction in many setting is counter productive to the stated goals and efforts of OCDO specifically or OC or 2A rights expansion more generally at this point and time. All the other crap is extraneous or things that aren't even being argued.

You say no, I say yes, some agree with me, some agree with you.

You don't have to like people's reactions and opinions, you don't have to agree but they are what they are and those behaviors and those reactions of your fellow citizens carry inherent consequences. I would like to OC daily, including in my own offices of my own businesses but I can't. It would not be acceptable to some customers and in this economy I can't chance offending a single customer. OC isn't the only thing I have a right to do that I refrain from because it would not be in my business' best interest. I have at times paid a heavy price for not just going along to get along, for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. It is often the folly of youth. I have learned that sometimes you have to bite your tongue or be more conforming for the time being to achieve long term goals, something that does not come naturally to me. Unfortunately, for many perception is reality and ignoring that fact is not going to help you, me or us achieve our goals.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

The only point of disagreement is whether that carry leading to that difference of reaction in many setting is counter productive to the stated goals and efforts of OCDO specifically or OC or 2A rights expansion more generally at this point and time. All the other crap is extraneous or things that aren't even being argued.

I would like to OC daily, including in my own offices of my own businesses but I can't. It would not be acceptable to some customers and in this economy I can't chance offending a single customer. OC isn't the only thing I have a right to do that I refrain from because it would not be in my business' best interest. I have at times paid a heavy price for not just going along to get along, for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. It is often the folly of youth. I have learned that sometimes you have to bite your tongue or be more conforming for the time being to achieve long term goals, something that does not come naturally to me. Unfortunately, for many perception is reality and ignoring that fact is not going to help you, me or us achieve our goals.

Click to expand...

Open carry of an ak or ar pistol is not counter productive. Counter productive is making excuses as to why carrying an ar or ak is bad, refraining from possibly offending someone, biting your tongue, or conforming. The criticism of those who open carry such handguns and the the criticism of those handgunsare going to harmthe "goal". The actualcarry of the firearm shows the legality and that it is safe to carry such a handgun.

Here are a couple of op ed's from a democratic rep in Tennessee.

Tuesday, 02/27/07
Issue is really about 'assault-style weapons'

By BEN WEST JR.

Recently, I was asked, "How do we get assault weapons off the street?"
As I considered that question, I decided that I should first determine what the problem is before I began to solve it.

Are "assault weapons" causing a problem on the street? No. Most experts define an assault weapon as a weapon capable of fully automatic firing. Assault weapons are machine guns and submachine guns. That type of weapon is not what I was being asked to address.
Another use of the term "assault weapons" appeared in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban where it was used to describe semi-automatic firearms that have mostly cosmetic features normally associated with military firearms. These semi-automatic weapons were called assault weapons because they "looked" bad, not because of what they could do. These semi-automatic firearms are really "assault-styled weapons" but they are not assault weapons. The term "assault-style weapons" is used by public officials, media and gun-control proponents to refer to firearms they consider inappropriate for civilian ownership.

Intended as a wedge issue
The characteristics of "assault-styled weapons" are largely irrelevant to a street crime problem. There is no epidemic of bayonetings or grenadings in Nashville. The pejorative term was likely created specifically to fit in the sentence, "Why would anybody need an assault weapon?" If so, it was intended as a wedge issue to push hunters away from the rest of the firearms community.
So, is the question really, "How do we get semi-automatic firearms that are cosmetically threatening off the streets?"
The first semi-automatic rifle was built in 1885. American gunsmith John Browning introduced semi-automatics to the civilian market as early 1906. The semi-automatic firearm has been in civilian hands in this country longer than the fuel-injected engine, the personal computer, the microwave oven, the credit card, the television and many other common items. Nobody complained until relatively recently.
The 1994 gun ban did not prohibit all semi-automatic firearms but just those that had a military look. But a semi-auto is a semi-auto no matter how mean or scary it may look. The technology is more than a 100 years old. If "assault-style weapons" have no place in society, then it follows that semi-automatics of any kind have no place in society. But our nation has persevered for close to 100 years with these guns in private hands, and there appears to be no sign of fundamental social breakdown as a result or 100-year crime trend because of their existence.
I am not persuaded that military-looking weapons are a problem. People misusing semi-automatic and other firearms are certainly a problem. I believe the solution is that we need to get and keep criminals off the street. Constitutionally, it is better to get the criminals off the streets than to classify a large group of responsible, law-abiding citizens as potential criminals just because of the look of the guns they may own.



January 2010

Law shouldn't be based on a handgun's appearance
Tennessee Voices

Recent news reports about an individual carrying a legal but uncommon-looking handgun into Radnor Lake State Park raises questions about whether Tennessee's handgun permit laws need to restrict handgun permit holders from carrying certain handguns based on their appearance.

I would oppose such legislation and think most of other legislators who support the Constitution would do likewise.

The debate arises, in part, because the individual, while exercising a right under Tennessee law, decided to openly carry a handgun that had an uncommon physical appearance. The initial law enforcement officers who responded were unaware that this firearm was commercially manufactured as a handgun and that it is recognized by the federal government as a handgun.

News reports confirmed that law enforcement officers ultimately called the ATF for advice on whether the firearm was a handgun and were advised that it was a handgun under federal law.

Since 1968, federal law has defined a handgun as "a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.'' Current Tennessee law similarly defines a handgun as a "firearm with a barrel length of less than 12 inches that is designed, made or adapted to be fired with one hand.''
Permit law a success

At least one news reporter disregarded the law and tried to make a story based primarily on the emotions of bystanders and people who were not even present. There were no facts that the individual was violating the law even though local and federal officials investigated the incident. The story focused on the emotional response of people to a decision about which handgun would be carried that day and how. Perhaps it was nothing more than a symbolic Second Amendment version of a flag burning, which also moves the emotions of some to restrict the First Amendment.

As a policy maker, I know that bad facts do not compel changing a good law. Although some people may use poor judgment in a particular context, that does not require that we change the law that could impact hundreds of thousands of families in Tennessee. Tennessee's handgun permit law has been an overwhelming success since 1994, and the legislature has recognized repeatedly that it must remove infringements and restrictions, as we did in 2009, rather than to increase them.

Tennessee does not need to follow the failed path of the federal government under the 1994 assault weapons ban of categorizing firearms based on appearances. That failure taught us clearly that we should not place restrictions on citizens based on the mere aesthetic appearance of a particular firearm. The appearance of a firearm is not relevant to its safety, usefulness, sporting function, effectiveness or even its Constitutional significance.

The handgun in question is a semi-automatic, similar in function to the semi-automatic pistols carried by most law enforcement. Do we really need to profile inanimate objects as a basis for public policy?

Ben West Jr., D-Nashville, represents the communities of Donelson, Hermitage and Antioch in the Tennessee General Assembly. E-mail: rep.ben.west@legislature.state.tn.gov.