Open Carry Overkill? (no pun intended)

T Dubya · Apr 17, 2011

peter nap said:
I'm not arrogant enough to dictate what someone else wants to carry as long as they conduct themselves in a civilized manner.

Make no mistake about it. I am (arrogant enough).

If this type of pistol open-carry were to become the norm, count me out of any and all open-carry activities. I don't want to be seen or photographed with that kind of open-carrier. No loss I guess, even though I have been a member in good standing of the activist community. In the grand scheme of things no one probably cares what my opinion is or if I were to opt out of activities. I have no problems with AR-type pistols, just open carriers with AR-type pistols.

CHILINVLN · Apr 17, 2011

T Dubya said:
Make no mistake about it. I am (arrogant enough).

If this type of pistol open-carry were to become the norm, count me out of any and all open-carry activities. I don't want to be seen or photographed with that kind of open-carrier. No loss I guess, even though I have been a member in good standing of the activist community. In the grand scheme of things no one probably cares what my opinion is or if I were to opt out of activities. I have no problems with AR-type pistols, just open carriers with AR-type pistols.

I agree. It's completely over the top. Legal, yes. Necessary, no.

stuckinchico · Apr 17, 2011

T Dubya said:
Make no mistake about it. I am (arrogant enough).

If this type of pistol open-carry were to become the norm, count me out of any and all open-carry activities. Snip

Well thats too bad. I think you will be missed, however im not to confident on that. You just might have been as arrogant to say that guns on your hips belongs in wildwest movie and not on the streets of Los angeles . To each their own. BTW he is well dressed. Good job

jmelvin · Apr 17, 2011

stuckinchico said:
Well thats too bad. I think you will be missed, however im not to confident on that. You just might have been as arrogant to say that guns on your hips belongs in wildwest movie and not on the streets of Los angeles . To each their own. BTW he is well dressed. Good job

+1 Carry what you like. As long as you're not unnecessarily harming someone what you carry is no more my business than what you eat or what god you pray to.

peter nap · Apr 17, 2011

T Dubya said:
Make no mistake about it. I am (arrogant enough).

If this type of pistol open-carry were to become the norm, count me out of any and all open-carry activities. I don't want to be seen or photographed with that kind of open-carrier.

I'm sorry to hear that TD. But as we all know, gun owners are pretty independent people who don't necessarly get along. Hopefully we all vote as a block but even that doesn't always happen.

No loss I guess, even though I have been a member in good standing of the activist community. In the grand scheme of things no one probably cares what my opinion is or if I were to opt out of activities.

That's not true either but again, we all make our own decisions.

I have no problems with AR-type pistols, just open carriers with AR-type pistols.

We've said this before. OC is a PR event as well as practical carry.
Asking that members not drink at dinners is different than dictating what kind of firearm they carry.

I've expressed extreme displeasure over Slung rifle events that were designed to attract as much negative attention as possible. Those were planned by outta staters and I didn't tell them to not carry rifles or exotic pistols. I simply told them to stay out of my state.

Not everyone agreed with me over that. Again...we can't please everyone.

If we start saying no AK/AR pistols, what's next. No 44 Magnums, no Monogrips, limit one magazine per person.

Start pulling that BS and Saslaw and Marsh will be happy campers because there will be no Gun lobby, just a bunch of individuals walking around with CHP's.

Grapeshot · Apr 17, 2011

It may be appropriate to note that past discussions and decisions regarding long guns and some of the reasons for their exclusion on OCDO are equally pertinent here IMO.

Reading and bolding salient points as follows:

"This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life..."

I happen to like and respect the young man portrayed, and respect his right to carry as he has.

Extrapolating from the LG rule those elements that define the problem, the prolonged discussion of such handguns on OCDO and the fact that this type of gun is not normal daily practice as envisioned by the site owners places them in the category of being off-topic.

This is not intended to be an invitation for prolonged discussion or debate. It is however a position statement generated by myself for the benefit of all.

Motofixxer · Apr 17, 2011

Hmm the totality of circumstances around OC'ing one of those could be interesting. But I agree with what has been said previously, FREEDOM is choice. If a particular piece is not what you would carry, fine don't carry it. But who are we to tell others what they can or can't carry. Isn't that hypocrisy?

Grapeshot · Apr 17, 2011

Motofixxer said:
Hmm the totality of circumstances around OC'ing one of those could be interesting. But I agree with what has been said previously, FREEDOM is choice. If a particular piece is not what you would carry, fine don't carry it. But who are we to tell others what they can or can't carry. Isn't that hypocrisy?

There is no intent or practice by OCDO to tell someone what they can or cannot carry; therefore no hypocrisy.

It has been said before the scope of OCDO is limited - all things related to RKBA are not allowed with equal authorization.

T Dubya · Apr 18, 2011

stuckinchico said:
Well thats too bad. I think you will be missed, however im not to confident on that. You just might have been as arrogant to say that guns on your hips belongs in wildwest movie and not on the streets of Los angeles . To each their own. BTW he is well dressed. Good job

You must be one of those forum trolls that likes to throw poo on walls and see what may stick.

ixtow · Apr 18, 2011

T Dubya said:
You must be one of those forum trolls that likes to throw poo on walls and see what may stick.

Hey, that's my job...

ixtow · Apr 18, 2011

@Grape; How much closer to on-topic would a PLR-16 be? I'm really not trying to troll. Since the interpretation of long guns that aren't really long guns seems to be rather subjective, I'm trying to figure out exactly where that line is drawn.

Grapeshot · Apr 18, 2011

ixtow said:
@Grape; How much closer to on-topic would a PLR-16 be? I'm really not trying to troll. Since the interpretation of long guns that aren't really long guns seems to be rather subjective, I'm trying to figure out exactly where that line is drawn.

It floats - more and more to the surface I think as time goes on. Still the bottom line is I can't give you a definitive answer. Perhaps best said as a work in progress - that is not to avoid giving you a direct answer intentionally.

It tends to be a distraction, when the flame wars and arguments start, from the goal of promoting and normalizing OC in our daily lives.

PR is tricky work, even influenced more so by the targeted audience. It is a war for the minds of the fence sitters and those antis that might be converted. So there also it is very much a subjective thing.

1245A Defender · Apr 18, 2011

well,,,

ixtow said:
@Grape; How much closer to on-topic would a PLR-16 be? I'm really not trying to troll. Since the interpretation of long guns that aren't really long guns seems to be rather subjective, I'm trying to figure out exactly where that line is drawn.

Grapeshot said:
It may be appropriate to note that past discussions and decisions regarding long guns and some of the reasons for their exclusion on OCDO are equally pertinent here IMO.

Reading and bolding salient points as follows:

"This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life..."

I happen to like and respect the young man portrayed, and respect his right to carry as he has.

Extrapolating from the LG rule those elements that define the problem, the prolonged discussion of such handguns on OCDO and the fact that this type of gun is not normal daily practice as envisioned by the site owners places them in the category of being off-topic.

This is not intended to be an invitation for prolonged discussion or debate. It is however a position statement generated by myself for the benefit of all.

im working on a Proper Holster for an AK-47 pistol.
the goal of OCDO talks about carrying properly holstered hand guns.
i never plan on carrying my ak pistol in my daily life, but
responsible carry is one of my goals.

the AK pistol fulfills a particular niche of personal protection,
a rifle power cartridge that can be carried loaded in the car.

wylde007 · Apr 18, 2011

peter nap said:
Asking that members not drink at dinners is different than dictating what kind of firearm they carry.

Categorically disagree.

You are asking members to conform to a level or degree of decorum that suits YOUR agenda and not necessarily the agenda of the other.

In order to be accepted by the group and reduce any instance of infighting, members may feel compelled by their perceived minority among the group to concede as an act of solidarity towards the "greater" goal.

I have absolutely no objections to people carrying and drinking. I think any arguments of that nature distract from our more common fabric.

Walt_Kowalski · Apr 18, 2011

T Dubya said:
Make no mistake about it. I am (arrogant enough).

If this type of pistol open-carry were to become the norm, count me out of any and all open-carry activities. I don't want to be seen or photographed with that kind of open-carrier. No loss I guess, even though I have been a member in good standing of the activist community. In the grand scheme of things no one probably cares what my opinion is or if I were to opt out of activities. I have no problems with AR-type pistols, just open carriers with AR-type pistols.

I would stand next to the OCer, the difference between you and me is, I don't believe that my 2A right to bear arms should be infringed.

Blk97F150 · Apr 18, 2011

Interesting topic. So far, this has been an informative read, that motivates one to think about other perspectives.

Thanks to the Moderator that opened the thread back up. I hope that it remains 'civil'... so that it can remain open.

wrightme · Apr 18, 2011

T Dubya said:
No it wasn't! It was over the top, inappropriate, and just plain stupid.

T Dubya said:
You must be one of those forum trolls that likes to throw poo on walls and see what may stick.

Actually, I do believe you led that charge to the toss.

Now as to the photo in question? It is not a properly holstered handgun. Neither is it in a position to bring to bear without contortions, as near as I can tell.

But, as to "over the top, inappropriate, and just plain stupid?" Maybe not.

It is a pistol, in a rifle caliber. There are others that are possibly more "over the top," but as a specific, it is not typically "holstered" in a manner befitting the stated goals of this website. Thus, it is liable to be taken out of discussion.

"Inappropriate?" Why?

As for "just plain stupid?" No, it is not such.

nuc65 · Apr 18, 2011

peter nap said:
I was there all day and watched the kid. (Sorry Dejeeper, damn near everyone is a kid except Grapeshot:lol.

He wasn't dressed in BDU's or goosestepping and didn't have a black T shirt and thick framed glasses or respond to everything with Military acronyms.

He had lunch with us and didn't attract any undue attention.

He was dressed well, spoke well, was reserved and mannerly.
It wouldn't have been my first choice in carry guns but then neither would one of those silly little plastic things that many members seem to love.

Year before last we had a member that carried a pistol version of a double barrel shotgun. He did get a lot of attention including the Capitol Police looking for his papers (which of course he didn't need because it wasn't a SBS).

[Highlight]I'm not arrogant enough to dictate what someone else wants to carry as long as they conduct themselves in a civilized manner.[/Highlight]

+1

When is a right not a right? When it interferes with the rights of another man! What right in this manner of carry interferes with your right to carry what you want, how your want? Whether or not agreed with, it is a right, why would you choose to violate his right to carry based on some arbitrary standard which you shall dictate?

Neplusultra · Apr 18, 2011

I own a PLR-16. It doesn't have a "buffer tube" like the Bushmaster and other true AR15 versions of this pistol. What I'd like to know is how this pistol can still be considered a pistol and not a SBR with that tube, which looks, and I'm sure can function, just like a short shoulder stock......

A bit off topic but I've been wondering about that all while reading through this thread.

Personally I would have no problem with someone carrying like that although it is a bit unusual, like his cap :^). Mostly I'd just say it's rather impractical as a carry weapon. Someone mentioned about carrying it in his vehicle, which is where I have carried mine often, but never out in the open. It's a great offensive weapon out to well over 100 yards.

The first time I showed the PLR to my sister she said, "That's excessive!". So now when I'm at the range and I see some wild gun I say, "That's really excessive!" :^). Since the purpose of the 2A is to defend against tyrannical government can anything short of an A bomb be "excessive" ??

Neplusultra · Apr 18, 2011

nuc65 said:
+1

when is a right not a right? When it interferes with the rights of another man! What right in this manner of carry interferes with your right to carry what you want, how your want? Whether or not agreed with, it is a right, why would you choose to violate his right to carry based on some arbitrary standard which you shall dictate?

exactly......

Open Carry Overkill? (no pun intended)

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Accomplished Advocate

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member