ak47 and ar15 pistols

imported post

i heard a couple ppl say they carry those ak47 and ar15 pistols. but how really do you carry those things, i mean surely only open carry since you only be able to conceal it with a jacket or if you wear a suit. and if you do, if you had a pic of you carrying i like to see your set up. i always figured those were just for the range or having fun with. but i read some post on some sites where ppl actually carry them , so i just like to see how

imported post

Its always nice to have an argument with an anti about how we arnt doing it for attention...and then this guy shows up...and we all look like idiots *epic facepalm*

imported post

ItTakesAWolf wrote:

Its always nice to have an argument with an anti about how we arnt doing it for attention...and then this guy shows up...and we all look like idiots *epic facepalm*

Click to expand...

Wow.....

How dare he exercise his right to carry what he deems necessary for his own personal protection.

Frankly, the shirt is in poorer taste than the firearm.

Moving forward, let's all be sure that we specify quite clearly what constitutes an "acceptable firearm" for the "OC Movement".

Somebody should print up a list, so we can hand it to guys like this and then shake our finger at them.

That would show those antis that we really are super sensitive to the baseless fears.

Then we could all group hug. :celebrate

imported post

"what he deems necessary for his own personal protection"

ya, if he lives in Mogadishu.

carrying a handgun cc or oc is in the sake of self defense...that, is an attention stunt.

I really love the fact that I can carry for my own protection...just in the last 3 months I have had to report 2 different kids on 2 separate occasions that where breaking into cars...one kid was actually trying to steal one of the cars until he notice that I had noticed him...IN BROAD DAYLIGHT IN A DESCENT NEIGHBORHOOD.

crime is real...its not just an excuse I use to be able to carry a gun.

I thought we where trying to be calm, respectful law abiding citizens standing up for our right to self defense and trying to get that word out and desensitize the public so that the appearance of guns in every day life is not an issue.

so to me it seems like being shocking for the sake of being shocking is a bit counter productive...right?

I think you should be able to carry anything you want...and hopefully some day its wont be an issue...but right now the opinion of the mass public is important.

uggggg I dont even know why im typing all this... im sure EVERYONE will disagree with me anyway.

imported post

ItTakesAWolf wrote:

"what he deems necessary for his own personal protection"

ya, if he lives in Mogadishu.

carrying a handgun cc or oc is in the sake of self defense...that, is an attention stunt....

Click to expand...

That PLR would be just as effective as whatever choice of sidearm you carry as well, in Mogadishu. Which is to say probably not "very".

What is the insinuation there? Are you implying a semi-automatic .223 (Not 5.56) pistol, with a short length barrel and very short gas system (lower muzzle energy/velocity), is somehow "vastly more dangerous" than a common sidearm?


Have you considered even the remote possibility that there are many people who feel that it is simply the best choice of defense for themselves, especially being prior service and having an extreme familiarity with the maintenance, upkeep, and feel of the firearm?

I am curious what rational, well thought out, articulated point could genuinely be made in support of the idea that the PLR is a poor firearm for personal protection?

Not appearance based hype, but rational argument against using a PLR as a primary defense firearm.

Out of curiosity, would you likewise state someone was showboating for carrying:

--Ruger Super Redhawk
--S&W Magnum .500
--Taurus Raging Bull
--Desert Eagle
--S&W N or X frames

...and well, I could keep this list up for far longer than I will. I think you get the point.

If it's a magazine capacity issue, would limiting it to 10 rounds work for you? If so I know of a great organization you could join.


There is definitely a public perception issue with pistol image, and the founders of this site are adamant about trying to coddle it. Not that I disagree that on a national level their positioning has anti-dramatic merit, but if the occasional individual feels the need to carry one, it doesn't necessarily mean he is being a showboat, nor is he intending to cause any sort of issue.

He is simply a citizen exercising his rights to carry, and frankly, if you had more people walking around with PLR's, I honestly don't think anybody would give two monkey turds.

In fact, "if" a hypothetical shootout would occur, you would realize real quick that in urban environments, the larger .38, .45acp, or even 9mm would be a better suited round than that PLR having such a short gas system, for energy transfer at close targets.

imported post

"If it's a magazine capacity issue, would limiting it to 10 rounds work for you? If so I know of a great organization you could join."







hahahahahahahaha I think that people will view that as ridiculous and completely shocking and it may hurt our cause... so now your throwing me in a box with the bradys? awesome hahaha I even said that I wish it wasn't an issue..but with things the way they are maybe we shouldn't go completely out of our way to scare people.

does that really make me an a** h***?









"What is the insinuation there? Are you implying a semi-automatic .223 (Not 5.56) pistol, with a short length barrel and very short gas system (lower muzzle energy/velocity), is somehow "vastly more dangerous" than a common sidearm?"




so your saying that what he was carrying is no more powerful or no more "gun" than a standard pistol...and .223 (even slowed down a bit due to the shorter barrel) at close range would in no way risk massive over penetration.

so then what would be the point of carrying that....OH NO! HES NOT DOING IT FOR ATTENTION IS HE??? HE COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE SHOWBOATING. *cue the sarcasm*

because as we all know, attention seeking for the sake of its self has proven SOOOOO EFFECTIVE in furthering our cause...right?






"Out of curiosity, would you likewise state someone was showboating for carrying:

--Ruger Super Redhawk
--S&W Magnum .500
--Taurus Raging Bull
--Desert Eagle
--S&W N or X frames"




hahhahahahahahahhaa Im sorry I didnt realize that I was talking to Ted Nugent....
in that case... YYYYEEEEEEE HHHHAAAAAWWWWWW :lol:

imported post

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 pistolis show boating...

tommy pistol



puma bounty hunter



sig 556 pistol



bushmaster carbon



plr-16



ak type pistol



ar pistol

imported post

I didn't "lump you together with the bradys", but the assessment that anybody who carries a PLR is "obviously showboating" is stupid. Sorry, but it is.

Massive "over-penetration"?




It's hard to hit another human being and have any round go straight through. This is almost an "urban legend", and not really any form of constant or consistent truth.

Not to mention, as kwik pointed out, you can chamber AR pistols in any variety of rounds. Yup, he could be chambering .223, .45acp, or 9mm. You just don't know.


I realize a lot of you guys fall for the "oh it looks scary and so it doesn't belong in our movement", but it makes no sense to label everyone who carries an AR pistol as a "showboater" as if they do it just to get attention. The definite appeal with an AR platform pistol is that it would be so diverse.

Good self-defense. Great range fun.


You can lump me in with Ted Nugent. I have a feeling he doesn't care what I choose to personally carry.

imported post

I'm with ItTakesAWolf. It is generally counterproductive.

I support the first amendment. I still think that people who burn the American flag are complete and utter jerks and I have no problem telling them my opinion, however, I will defend their rights to be jerks.

Similarly here, I certainly support someone's right to carry such a pistol for, um, laff, day to day self-defense. However, I also have no problem saying that I think it is counter productive in a majority of urban/suburban locations and settings to the broadening of the recognition of our rights.

I'm not saying such weapons don't have any place in personal defense, that they are inappropriate in every setting or that they should be banned or restricted.

imported post

See I do not believe that it should be allowed to be thought of as "generally counterproductive". I respect your guys opinions, but your entire argument is based on the very same irrational fear that the antis have. At a minimum, it caters to said fear.

It gives credibility to the idea that its "ok" to be "afraid of the black AR type pistol", even from the perspective of a "gun owner".

That is likewise not helpful to the RTKBA or 2A cause.

The opinion on this site, is that "normal" handguns in "normal" holsters are what the "open carry movement" is all about.

It is this categorization that is divisive in nature, and not inclusive of the RTKBA and 2A.

What is "laff", as you stated, for in regards to a AR pistol as a self-defense firearm?

Can you articulate your feelings on this please?

Also, carrying a AR pistol is in no way, shape, or form equatable to burning the American flag. In fact, the AR is responsible for saving more American lives every year, than probably all other makes or models combined. I would say it's very "American" to carry an AR of any variant, so long as it is done in a lawful manner.

imported post

*SHRUG*

This is the age of the shrug I suppose.

I'm over in the camp that says we would be hypocrites to decry it, but that it does little to win hearts and minds.

imported post

heliopolissolutions wrote:

*SHRUG*

This is the age of the shrug I suppose.

I'm over in the camp that says we would be hypocrites to decry it, but that it does little to win hearts and minds.

Click to expand...

The only way, in my opinion, that we can debunk the ideology that they are "so scary", is to show, just like the open carry of "normal firearms in normal holsters", that the activity is safe.

People all over this country no doubt have the feeling that a holstered .45 is an accident waiting to happen, and should not be permitted to be carried anywhere. The truth is, that the activity is very safe, and the chance for accidental harm is extremely low.

People who elect to carry AR or AK based pistols, or any "odd" pistol, are just as safe, and should make efforts to show the same.

Almost every argument carried against an AR of any variety is that they are "scary". As long as we sit and give credibility to that, we substantiate that false ideology.

Certainly everyone who is against us carrying firearms would like us to concede to carrying .22lr or .380 sub-compacts. This "out of sight, out of mind" mentality does not represent reality, and does nothing whatsoever to normalize the carry of a vast variety of firearms.

Being that sub-compacts are the small range of common handgun, and the S&W N or X frames and AR based pistols are the other end of the spectrum, wouldn't it be nice to be all inclusive of every open carriers rights, and normalize the carry across the board, showing that sub-compacts, and AR pistols like, are all completely safe choices?

By limiting our scope of inclusion, we are limiting our interpretation of freedom and normalization.

Just my opinion.

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

See I do not believe that it should be allowed to be thought of as "generally counterproductive". I respect your guys opinions, but your entire argument is based on the very same irrational fear that the antis have. At a minimum, it caters to said fear.

It gives credibility to the idea that its "ok" to be "afraid of the black AR type pistol", even from the perspective of a "gun owner".

That is likewise not helpful to the RTKBA or 2A cause.

The opinion on this site, is that "normal" handguns in "normal" holsters are what the "open carry movement" is all about.

It is this categorization that is divisive in nature, and not inclusive of the RTKBA and 2A.

What is "laff", as you stated, for in regards to a AR pistol as a self-defense firearm?

Can you articulate your feelings on this please?

Also, carrying a AR pistol is in no way, shape, or form equatable to burning the American flag. In fact, the AR is responsible for saving more American lives every year, than probably all other makes or models combined. I would say it's very "American" to carry an AR of any variant, so long as it is done in a lawful manner.

Click to expand...

Dude please understand that every time someone with an undecided opinion on carry sees something like that, you pretty much just handed that person over to the antis...those people that where undecided before are now upset and out raged enough to go out of there way to votes against our rights.

maybe someday it will be ok and acceptable...and I hope I see that day...but right now its just hurting us more than helping us.

and also realize that weather or not you think so, carrying a weapon like that IS GOING TO ATTRACT A LOT OF ATTENTION! and people will be constantly calling the police. (we already get too much attention as it is)

and every officer that responds to contact him will be tied up from doing there job.

people that call the police to report carry don't normally call 911 saying

"Well hello, I would just like to politly inform you that there is a man calmly carrying a legal semi automatic .223 (not 5.56) ar-type pistol in a nice holster...im pretty sure hes only doing it for self defense so I dont think theres anything to worry about but can you just check on him to make sure hes ok?"

they call saying

"THERES A CRAZY MAN WITH A MACHINE GUN...OH MY GOD"

how are the police supposed to know whats really happening until 15 of the show up and contact him.

and then as he tries to explain to the police how he doing it for self defence and then he whips out ballistic data charts and tries to argue that .223 is a reasonable inner city self defense cartridge...there all just gonna think hes a idiot...and now you have 15 officers with a poor opinion about open carry...

I dont see how you could think thats a good idea.

well im not gonna beat a dead horse anymore.

you think what ever you want.

Ill holster my handgun (that I actually carry for self defense) and dress clean and treat everyone I met with the up most respect and go about my day and not let the gun even be a big deal or an issue, and you can run around arguing with people about why you think there stupid cause there nervous about your 45 colt lever gun or your ak pistol.

imported post

ItTakesAWolf wrote:

...people will be constantly calling the police. (we already get too much attention as it is) and every officer that responds to contact him will be tied up from doing there job. People that call the police to report carry don't normally call 911 saying

"Well hello, I would just like to politly inform you that there is a man calmly carrying a legal semi automatic .223 (not 5.56) ar-type pistol in a nice holster...im pretty sure hes only doing it for self defense so I dont think theres anything to worry about but can you just check on him to make sure hes ok?"

they call saying "THERES A CRAZY MAN WITH A MACHINE GUN...OH MY GOD"

how are the police supposed to know whats really happening until 15 of them show up and contact him.

Click to expand...

Cops get excited about anyone with a gun. It doesn't matter if it is a "Oh my God he's got a gun" call or a "I saw a man with a gun walking with his family" call. Police shouldn't do anything unless laws are being broken.

Yes, people call 911 and calmly report on people with guns. One called on me a couple of months ago. Here is the recording

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

ItTakesAWolf wrote:

...people will be constantly calling the police. (we already get too much attention as it is) and every officer that responds to contact him will be tied up from doing there job. People that call the police to report carry don't normally call 911 saying

"Well hello, I would just like to politly inform you that there is a man calmly carrying a legal semi automatic .223 (not 5.56) ar-type pistol in a nice holster...im pretty sure hes only doing it for self defense so I dont think theres anything to worry about but can you just check on him to make sure hes ok?"

they call saying "THERES A CRAZY MAN WITH A MACHINE GUN...OH MY GOD"

how are the police supposed to know whats really happening until 15 of them show up and contact him.

Click to expand...

Cops get excited about anyone with a gun. It doesn't matter if it is a "Oh my God he's got a gun" call or a "I saw a man with a gun walking with his family" call. Police shouldn't do anything unless laws are being broken.

Yes, people call 911 and calmly report on people with guns. One called on me a couple of months ago. Here is the recording

Click to expand...

thats fantastic, a calm call (about your >>>HANDGUN!<<<) is more than likely to have a light calm responce.

weather you like it or not you WILL be contacted.

when it happens, be respectful, and do what you can to resolve it as quickly as possible...

when im contacted by officers, I kill em with kindness and treat em with respect...and about 5 min later im walking away with a smile and possibly a new police buddy... and the responding officers now have a good positive story to tell about there run in with open carry.

the next time im contacted by the same officers they get out of the car and say "Hey Jered, how are you today? we just got called and wanted to see what was up...you have a good day." I wave and smile, end of story.

some times I deal with an officer thats a little less understanding, but im still nice and the stop never lasts long.

hopefully with enough positive stops the issue will fade .

imported post

My commentary is not yielding in any way, shape, or form to the belief of the antis. I don't even so how you could try to twist or contort what I said to imply that.

In fact, my positioning is vehemently, and absolutely in full 180 degree contrast to the anti argument and ideology.



My outlook:

--Every man or woman should be able to carry what he or she wants.

--Non-exposure of a safe firearm that is vilified on appearance alone, for the express intent of avoiding irrational fear-laden phone calls to police is not productive to the cause. In fact, it is absolute kowtowing.

--Safe, polite carry of a pistol of ANY model, is the best way to foster education, while simultaneously proving proof that the mere presence of any given firearm alone, is not cause for concern or worry.


Your outlook, from what I have gleaned from your posts:

--Anybody who elects to carry a AR or AK pistol must be, obviously, showboating.

--Cater to the idea that the firearm is somehow "radical and dangerous" when compared to other pistols, mostly rationalized by anti-types on simple appearance alone.



Can anybody quote to me in the 2nd Amendment where it states that certain types of pistols are "ok" to carry, while others are not?

The entire fear behind AR platform, or AK platform pistols is horrendously dramatic, and completely emotive in nature. By yielding to this dramatic emotion, you give substantiation to the antis, especially as a firearms owner, that there is actually merit and reasoning behind their unwarranted fears.

Pretty simple.


EDIT: Oh and yes, I am sure that politely and rationally speaking to the police in an effort to educate them as to some of the absolute myths about what you choose to carry, would be received with batons and tazers at all times.

Facts are "dumb", right? Let's all act like a bunch of emotional idiots because something looks scary.

I am sure that ideology is "win-win" in society.

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

See I do not believe that it should be allowed to be thought of as "generally counterproductive". I respect your guys opinions, but your entire argument is based on the very same irrational fear that the antis have. At a minimum, it caters to said fear.

It gives credibility to the idea that its "ok" to be "afraid of the black AR type pistol", even from the perspective of a "gun owner".

That is likewise not helpful to the RTKBA or 2A cause.

The opinion on this site, is that "normal" handguns in "normal" holsters are what the "open carry movement" is all about.

It is this categorization that is divisive in nature, and not inclusive of the RTKBA and 2A.

What is "laff", as you stated, for in regards to a AR pistol as a self-defense firearm?

Can you articulate your feelings on this please?

Also, carrying a AR pistol is in no way, shape, or form equatable to burning the American flag. In fact, the AR is responsible for saving more American lives every year, than probably all other makes or models combined. I would say it's very "American" to carry an AR of any variant, so long as it is done in a lawful manner.

Click to expand...

Using the burning the flag and carrying an AR pistol examples was not intended as a moral equivalent. I was trying to point out that they are two two rightfully legal exercising of rights which I will defend even if I disagree. In hind sight, bad juxtaposition.

This isn't about fear, at least not our fear. I have shot an AK pistol and it was pretty cool. And I'm going to investigate that Puma Bounty Hunter as I think I might like to own and even carry something like that. What? Carry something like that after what I said?? Yep. I would carry something like that out on our place in rural KY, hiking in a wilderness area and such. But not to the local mall on a Saturday afternoon. Not because I have any fears of it but the general public freaks out over stuff like that.

The fact is that image and impressions matter. Right now it is hard enough for us to get the general public in many places to accept our open carry of "normal" sidearms. We can't even get preemption passed in MO and still have numerous pointless "off limits" on CC carry despite the rather intensive background check required.

The goal is normalize the behavior as has been done to a great extent in WA, AZ (where it was never really not normal for much of the population), WY, VA, etc. But even there OCers have constant battles to defend our rights. In many other places the battles are just beginning even in areas where firearm ownership is quite common.

I have had hunters who own more firearms than me think my shot gun is "tacticool" because it has a heat shield and Knoxx recoil stock. Had an older country-folk neighbor in rural KY who grew up around guns and hunting, has hunted herself and who's husband has a scabbard on his 4 wheeler for his mini-14 he carries with him pretty much all the time shocked that I carry a handgun not just up the holler which isn't so unusual but into and around town as well let alone every where I go. I can't even imagine her reaction if I carried an AR pistol.

In summary. I'm not afraid of them. I do not think them a very practical daily carry option due to over penetration possibilities and, due to their size and weight, draw and on target time in a sudden self-defense situation. I do not think they should be restricted or disallowed. And finally I think they freak out non-gun owners (and probably some pro gun types too). For those reasons I think the carry of them in most settings to be counter productive to our cause of expanding our second amendment rights in general and our carry, especially open carry, rights in particular, but will regardless defend someone's right to do so anyway.

imported post

We desperately need an intervention of some sort that in some way, shape, or form divides the line of "common sense" that people think they really possess, as if it is some sort of all quantified and justified position, from law.

My point is, what harm could come of someone carrying peaceably, a PLR or other "tacticool" handgun? Not much really, unless "you" have a heart attack based on some sort of emotive response drilled into you either from anti-firearm parents, or media, which is to be blunt, nobody elses fault.

My major peeve is that people are so quick to just blatantly assume that someone who opts to carry a PLR or AK/AR variant pistol is obviously "showboating", and therefore should be group-tossed under the wheels of the social bus. Talk about a sheep mentality!

I think it's a horrible human quality to surmise so much on the presence of so little.

I am not stating that there is not this extremely misinformed ideology about AR's or AK's in society. I am simply stating that there are more productive ways to dissociate the uneasy masses unfounded fears. One such way is to introduce the element into the environment, and let the element of time display how truly unfounded some of the irrational fears are! Is this not how Open Carry has progressed as a movement?

I dare say it is...


EDIT:

As for the "over penetration capability" that is assigned to the .223, I would have to say that extensive study into the rounds ballistics would show you that it is for the most part a very unsubstantiated argument.

.223 is no more deadly than any common pistol round within 200-300 meters, because it maintains enough momentum to fragment upon impact, and most of the time will so long as velocities are high enough.

Through coefficient it maintains a superior flight path, especially when shot out of a standard barrel, as compared to say a .45.

I think all of us maintain that hitting your target is first and foremost important, and to that end many of us spend way more time at the range than most law enforcement officers. Some even invest in tactical training, which is to say extremely worthwhile.

All of this to increase your ability to hit your target.

Sir, I propose that a .223 flyer @ 55gr, especially in a JHP, is no worse than a 230 grain .45acp round that has likewise gone off course.

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

We desperately need an intervention of some sort that in some way, shape, or form divides the line of "common sense" that people think they really possess, as if it is some sort of all quantified and justified position, from law.

My point is, what harm could come of someone carrying peaceably, a PLR or other "tacticool" handgun? Not much really, unless "you" have a heart attack based on some sort of emotive response drilled into you either from anti-firearm parents, or media, which is to be blunt, nobody elses fault.

My major peeve is that people are so quick to just blatantly assume that someone who opts to carry a PLR or AK/AR variant pistol is obviously "showboating", and therefore should be group-tossed under the wheels of the social bus. Talk about a sheep mentality!

I think it's a horrible human quality to surmise so much on the presence of so little.

I am not stating that there is not this extremely misinformed ideology about AR's or AK's in society. I am simply stating that there are more productive ways to dissociate the uneasy masses unfounded fears. One such way is to introduce the element into the environment, and let the element of time display how truly unfounded some of the irrational fears are! Is this not how Open Carry has progressed as a movement?

I dare say it is...


EDIT:

As for the "over penetration capability" that is assigned to the .223, I would have to say that extensive study into the rounds ballistics would show you that it is for the most part a very unsubstantiated argument.

.223 is no more deadly than any common pistol round within 200-300 meters, because it maintains enough momentum to fragment upon impact, and most of the time will so long as velocities are high enough.

Through coefficient it maintains a superior flight path, especially when shot out of a standard barrel, as compared to say a .45.

I think all of us maintain that hitting your target is first and foremost important, and to that end many of us spend way more time at the range than most law enforcement officers. Some even invest in tactical training, which is to say extremely worthwhile.

All of this to increase your ability to hit your target.

Sir, I propose that a .223 flyer @ 55gr, especially in a JHP, is no worse than a 230 grain .45acp round that has likewise gone off course.

Click to expand...

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.

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


and WHO CARES ABOUT THE BALLISTIC DEBATE.

I dont care if that gun is chamber in 22lr

THATS NOT THE POINT

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???

imported post

I didn't say "showboating" although I would suggest it is often ostentatious intentional or not.

I'm not tossing anyone under the bus. Saying, "Hey, I think that is counter productive to our cause in most situations" is not the same as saying, "go sit in the corner by yourself because we aren't talking to you and don't want to be seen with you."

I didn't write "over penetration capability" but rather "over penetration possibilities". I used the word "possibility" as I have not seen ballistics on the AR pistol and as pointed out, there are numerous chamberings of the AK pistol so to discuss that one would require speaking of a particular chambering. I would think that would be greater likelihood of over-penetration w/ a .223 at the low end of rifle velocity than with a 230 gr JHP moving at 900 fps. I'm not nearly as familiar with HP .223 rounds and their ballistics as I am with pistol ammo so perhaps your fragmentation argument is the more accurate assessment.

There is no "sheep mentality" involved in my opinion. I just disagree with your position. As stated, I don't think they should be restricted or banned and I think they are appropriate and fine in certain settings.

We don't think of it this way, but really, there is a "community standard" for carrying a sidearm for personal and community defense. It has been set for 4 generations most places by LEO. That standard is a "typical" pistol or revolver in a holster at the waist or a shoulder holster. We grew up with it on TV. We see it daily on the streets. In popular culture, erroneous as it is, it is the bad guys of some type we see with the exotic weapons and the odd carry methods.

In the places where our carry rights were severely curtailed for 35-40 years, we generally first established CC. Then and still now, we pushed for acceptance of OC. Most places it is a progression. Carrying a sidearm that is very difficult to CC and that freaks out many people gives the anti crowd yet one more argument against OC. It gives the pro-CC but anti-OC crowd (and we all know one or more) another reason why we should be limited to CC - "Hey, that big scary AR pistol is too big to reasonably CC so if we keep OC restricted we won't have "assault pistols" on your streets around your chiiiillldddrreeeeeeeen!" Blah, blah, blah.

In WA, AZ, WY, VA, etc maybe it isn't a big deal. Maybe it is isn't going to effect anything for people to carry an AR or AK pistol to Little Suzy's pizza party. But in a lot of other places where the battle just to gain preemption and some level of general acceptance of OC is still rolling up hill, it isn't going to help our cause or argument and it is going to unnecessarily give ammunition to the antis.