Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 110

Thread: The answer that most CC'ers give in opposition to OC

  1. #26
    Regular Member BigBadChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Arlington, Texas
    Posts
    2
    I just started CC'ing this week, because I can't open carry in my state. I don't see why CC'ers feel the need to bash fellow 2nd amendment supporters. Makes no sense to me.

  2. #27
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stanwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,422
    Quote Originally Posted by yale View Post
    Actually I know exactily the forum he's talking about. Go to www.defensivecarry.org and just look around, especialy in the Open Carry subsection of the forum.
    I can't. I got banned permanently from there. They don't like all this talk about 4th Amendment this....2nd Amendment that...1st Amendment... it offends them.

  3. #28
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Orlando, FL, ,
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by BigBadChris View Post
    I don't see why CC'ers feel the need to bash fellow 2nd amendment supporters. Makes no sense to me.

    To be fair, that train goes both ways. I see, IMHO, just as many OC'ers blasting at CC.

    Personally, I've never understood the divide, one side or another. IMHO, carrying is carrying. Carry what you want, how you want, for the reasons you want. *shrug*

    While that isn't always an option in every state, I've always felt we were on the same side here. (or supposed to be anyway)

    I have my reasons to have a preferred method of carrying. As does everyone else here. On this particular forum, the majority would rather OC. On a CC forum, the preference might be different. So long as neither platform infringes upon the others rights or freedoms, I see no reason why either side should be wrong.
    Last edited by JeepSeller; 02-15-2012 at 05:28 PM.

  4. #29
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by JeepSeller View Post
    Why is that confusing and wrong?


    Listen, I'm not defending the arguments against OC, we all know most of them are rubbish. But, sometimes, there are unintended consequences.

    For example, we came a hair's breath from getting open carry in Florida last year. Some sneaky underhanded politics at the final buzzer, combined with some very poor choice of wording used to campaign FOR the bill, killed it.

    But, the way I understand things, the Retail Federation was bucking to have the legislature give "no firearms" signs some bite. Making it a criminal offense to ignore a posted sign.

    Currently, in Florida, I can carry (Concealed that is) just about anywhere I choose. I can't carry in bars, schools, fed buildings, cop stations, and that's just about it. If it ain't on that list, I can carry. Period. Meaning, a business owner can post all the cotton picking signs they want. They're pretty signs, but, they mean nothing to me. I can admire them as I walk by them if if makes them feel better. LOL

    If the Retail Federation had gotten their way, those sign would now prohibit me (a law abiding citizen) from carrying in there. Basically, severely restricting my freedom to carry. Fortunately, once the open carry bill died, the Retail Federation backed off their wishes.

    Now, I don't know how much of a chance they had to get their way, but, one cannot discount the possibility they could have gotten it. Bad ideas get passed for law all the time. Would it stand up to test of court? Who knows, but, me? I'm not willing to gamble my freedoms that way. I may not like the fact that we don't have the choice to carry OC, but, at least we can still carry to protect ourselves and our family just about anywhere we want to go.

    OC's day will come. But, it shouldn't be at the cost of other freedoms. Those that were fighting at the State level wisely gave up to fight another day, hopefully, without the potential backlash.

    So, don't knock some claims. While we may not like hearing/seeing them, there is some risk present that could make them right.
    That's sort of how it is here. The "no weapons" signs carry no weight but, a business can trespass you regardless. If you're CCed, they can't trespass you for something they can't see. But, we have a rep that's trying to pass a law that you cannot be trespassed/disorderly conduct for legal OC/CC from businesses or the public. So, I'm failing to see how the OC bill in your state was a bad thing. You can carry concealed anyway. What about us who prefer OC? Where are our rights in your state?
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  5. #30
    Regular Member BigBadChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Arlington, Texas
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JeepSeller View Post
    To be fair, that train goes both ways. I see, IMHO, just as many OC'ers blasting at CC.

    Personally, I've never understood the divide, one side or another. IMHO, carrying is carrying. Carry what you want, how you want, for the reasons you want. *shrug*

    While that isn't always an option in every state, I've always felt we were on the same side here. (or supposed to be anyway)

    I have my reasons to have a preferred method of carrying. As does everyone else here. On this particular forum, the majority would rather OC. On a CC forum, the preference might be different. So long as neither platform infringes upon the others rights or freedoms, I see no reason why either side should be wrong.
    I agree, carrying is carrying. I would love to have the option for both in my state so I don't have to worry about "printing". The people I have talked to prefer the concealed method. I would just assume have it out in the open, then concealed.

  6. #31
    Regular Member .40S&W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    74
    Agree with Chris, carrying is carrying. I support both methods of carry. I hope ultimately that the entire country will have Constitutional carry.
    Never get complacent. Practice situational awareness. Stay alert stay alive.

  7. #32
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    That's sort of how it is here. The "no weapons" signs carry no weight but, a business can trespass you regardless. If you're CCed, they can't trespass you for something they can't see. But, we have a rep that's trying to pass a law that you cannot be trespassed/disorderly conduct for legal OC/CC from businesses or the public. So, I'm failing to see how the OC bill in your state was a bad thing. You can carry concealed anyway. What about us who prefer OC? Where are our rights in your state?
    Oh, so the right to self defense should be the only right to matter? Property rights don't mean much to most here. If a business doesn't want guns in it then we shouldn't MAKE the allow it.

    1. If I don't want to do business with a certain chain business then that is fine. I have the right to go somewhere else and not do business with them.
    2. If a business doesn't want to do business with a certain group of people (us) then we should get the government to force them to? So they shouldn't have the right not to do business with me?

    What if I was forced to do business with the chain business in one, would that be fair? I see this as very one sided. I support rights and I see this as infringing on one to strengthen another. When that is done to us then we don't think it is right, so lets don't do it to other people.

    The government shouldn't be allow to prohibit firearms on OUR property, but we should be allowed to.

  8. #33
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Orlando, FL, ,
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    That's sort of how it is here. The "no weapons" signs carry no weight but, a business can trespass you regardless. If you're CCed, they can't trespass you for something they can't see. But, we have a rep that's trying to pass a law that you cannot be trespassed/disorderly conduct for legal OC/CC from businesses or the public. So, I'm failing to see how the OC bill in your state was a bad thing. You can carry concealed anyway. What about us who prefer OC? Where are our rights in your state?
    I'm probably not the best one to try to explain the OC bill fiasco we had recently. To be honest, I'm still a little confused about what exactly happened. And, of course, there's the finger-pointing. No one takes responsibility, and everyone's got someone else to blame.

    The OC bill wasn't bad. I was just poorly executed. Here's the way I understand it....I think I'm pretty close to the pin here...but, bear in mind, this is only my own interpretation of the events.....

    They were most probably going to attach it( the bill) to the current CC license scheme, meaning, they'd just turn our Concealed Carry licenses into a what would amount to simply a carry license. Not exactly the unrestricted, constitutional carry everyone wants, but, a solid step in the right direction. The license issue could then be challenged constitutionally later and perhaps end up with unrestricted OC and licensed CC in all likelihood.

    There was enough support in the Florida government from what I understand. But, the organizers of the bill pushed it through using the excuse that if my jacket were to blow open in the wind and expose my concealed gun, I could go to jail. (something that was really a non-issue to begin with. Almost NO cases where anyone has ever been popped for that kind of "brief" exposure of a weapon. )

    So, at the final hour, literally moments before the vote on the House floor, a couple of the more vocal opponents proposed an amendment to the bill that changed the wording to the current laws that clarified "temporary exposure" as a non-criminal act..... and promptly removed the open carry provisions......Basically, clipping the manhood from the bill.

    It took all the wind out of the sails related to ANY argument FOR the bill.....the proponents, including the actual politicians who sponsored the bill, didn't man up and defend the bill, and since it was last minute, barring any real debate or discussion, that's the bill that got passed.

    Sorry for the history lesson. LOL

    Florida will get there. It took SEVERAL years to get CC passed back in the 80's. A couple years won't be the end of the world.

    Anyway, wasn't looking to sidebar the thread here. I've spent a few years now shuffling around in the Florida section, thought I'd poke around outside the Florida section for awhile.

    I really don't understand why there's that "us vs. them" mentality in regard to OC and CC. But, it's one of the most divisive subjects I see on these forums for some reason. I was just pointing out that the drama does kind of go both ways. I've seen some equally nasty comments from both sides toward both sides in my days.

  9. #34
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Columbia, in the Peoples Republic of Murderland
    Posts
    5,369
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    "OCers will be the first to be shot."
    We have not seen this to be the case. Yes there was one but one out of how many?? Statistically it is not an issue.
    Actually, that was NOT a robbery where the OCer was shot because the robbers saw him with a gun after they'd started the robbery. This fellow was targeted BECAUSE he had a gun, they essentially mugged him, stole his gun, and then when he (unarmed) tried to chase and wrestle his gun back from them, they shot him.


    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    "OCers are attention ******."
    I will grant that some fall into this category. We see them posting on youtube. But those are in the minority I would bet.
    Have you ever talked to someone with an "unrestricted" CC permit from MD who doesn't have it because they were brutally attacked? Most of the people who are "connected" or wealthy enough to get an Unrestricted MD permit that I've ever met are the most egregiously egocentric attention-****** that I've ever met. The entire encounter on half a dozen instances revolved around the fact that they were CCing, and nobody else was (at least not legally)...


    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    "OCers will have their gun taken."
    Again, no rush to this taking place.
    Only by cops...


    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    "OCers will be hassled by police."
    Yes, this has certainly happened and it's usually in the fence sitting states (those where the demographics tend not to be so friendly to guns and gun people in general). Educating the local police is the best way to reduce this.
    Only by bad cops, in localities that don't believe in the Constitution, or enjoyt being sued into oblivion.


    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    And last but not least:
    "I (CCers) want the element of 'surprise'."
    What this "element of surprise" mentality REALLY means--and EVERONE needs to LISTEN to this, and realize (and ADMIT) that it is TRUE--is that CCers who believe this are the kind of people who WANT to shoot some bad guy, and are harboring vigilante tendencies. If you are CCing, and someone attacks you because you look like an unarmed sheeple, and you shoot them, that is nothing more than "entrapment"--you have intentionally "set up" a thug to think you are prey, JUST SO you can shoot one. Not all CCers believe this, so I'm not saying all CCers are sociopathic vigilantes, but some are, and we ALL need to admit that, and deal with the reality of that concept...

    OCers, on the other hand, put their means of defense right out in the open for all the world to see. They make their condition of preparedness, and their unwillingness to be a victim OBVIOUS. They are attempting to AVOID a violent attack in the first place--because the LAST THING that an OCer wants to do is actually draw their firearm.


    Just wanted to set the record straight on some of these myths, and some of the counterpoints that Southern Boy was trying to make...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 02-15-2012 at 09:28 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  10. #35
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Orlando, FL, ,
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    Oh, so the right to self defense should be the only right to matter? Property rights don't mean much to most here. If a business doesn't want guns in it then we shouldn't MAKE the allow it.

    1. If I don't want to do business with a certain chain business then that is fine. I have the right to go somewhere else and not do business with them.
    2. If a business doesn't want to do business with a certain group of people (us) then we should get the government to force them to? So they shouldn't have the right not to do business with me?

    What if I was forced to do business with the chain business in one, would that be fair? I see this as very one sided. I support rights and I see this as infringing on one to strengthen another. When that is done to us then we don't think it is right, so lets don't do it to other people.

    The government shouldn't be allow to prohibit firearms on OUR property, but we should be allowed to.
    I agree completely 09jisaac! It's dangerous at best to have the government sticking their noses into private property rights like that...... But, that's another rant for another thread. LOL

  11. #36
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by JeepSeller View Post

    ...I really don't understand why there's that "us vs. them" mentality in regard to OC and CC.

    But, it's one of the most divisive subjects I see on these forums for some reason.

    I've seen some equally nasty comments from both sides toward both sides in my days.
    There shouldn't be an "us" and "them" mentality among those who OC and those who CC.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  12. #37
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    Oh, so the right to self defense should be the only right to matter? Property rights don't mean much to most here. If a business doesn't want guns in it then we shouldn't MAKE the allow it.

    1. If I don't want to do business with a certain chain business then that is fine. I have the right to go somewhere else and not do business with them.
    2. If a business doesn't want to do business with a certain group of people (us) then we should get the government to force them to? So they shouldn't have the right not to do business with me?

    What if I was forced to do business with the chain business in one, would that be fair? I see this as very one sided. I support rights and I see this as infringing on one to strengthen another. When that is done to us then we don't think it is right, so lets don't do it to other people.

    The government shouldn't be allow to prohibit firearms on OUR property, but we should be allowed to.
    If a business refuses the rights of a group, there should be an alternate solution that that group can fall back on. If you wish to refuse sales to African-Americans then, there should be another business that would sell just to African-Americans, in theory. If a business wants to deny me the right to defend myself then you bet I want a security escort through the store and out to my vehicle. My safety and the safety of others, in my opinion, is above property rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by JeepSeller View Post
    I really don't understand why there's that "us vs. them" mentality in regard to OC and CC. But, it's one of the most divisive subjects I see on these forums for some reason. I was just pointing out that the drama does kind of go both ways. I've seen some equally nasty comments from both sides toward both sides in my days.
    Thank you for explaining to me the best you could with what was going on down there. I appreciate it. There will always be an "us versus them" mentality regarding anything, unfortunately. If constitutional carry were allowed, I'm sure there'd be a "My .45 is better than your .22 and you're wrong for using it.", "My S&W is better than your Glock and you're just hurting the cause", etc. People just need a reason to feel empowered by perceiving they're better than others. It's sad.
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  13. #38
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    If a business refuses the rights of a group, there should be an alternate solution that that group can fall back on. If you wish to refuse sales to African-Americans then, there should be another business that would sell just to African-Americans, in theory. If a business wants to deny me the right to defend myself then you bet I want a security escort through the store and out to my vehicle. My safety and the safety of others, in my opinion, is above property rights.
    This I agree on, but you don't need to come to my fictional business to be safe. If you don't like leaving you self protection at my property line then exercise your right to do business with who you choose somewhere else. I am not saying property rights trump everything else but unless you "need" to be there then you should abide by the rules of the property without government restrictions. The less government we have the more freedom we will be.

    So you're into reversed racism? The government should favor any group that society rejects? If I refuse to do business with BLACKS then they need a business that only caters to them? No. The government shouldn't get involved with that at all. I am not saying it is right, all I am saying is the government has no business in that. If I was refused service at a business based on my skin color I would go somewhere else, until I found a place that would serve me. Also, they're black. Not African-American, most were born and raised in the US and have no ties (besides ancestral) to africa. I am white not a "German-American". Treat other races how you want to be treated, it is a large step against racism.

  14. #39
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,379
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac
    Oh, so the right to self defense should be the only right to matter?
    Property rights don't mean much to most here.
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick
    My safety and the safety of others, in my opinion, is above property rights.
    What she said.
    Other rights matter, but the right to self-defense is at least on a par with (if not superceding) the 1A rights that businesses may not infringe: religion, speech (at least in the form of what a person is wearing), association (who you walk around the store with). Without life, none of the other rights mean anything.

    And the rights of real people to determine what happens to their bodies are above the privilege of a store manager to refuse service because s/he doesn't like the property that person has with him/her.

    If a business doesn't want to do business with a certain group of people (us) then we should get the government to force them to?
    That's exactly what other groups have done.
    When's the last time you saw a "no African Americans allowed" sign in a store window?
    Or "Irish keep out"?
    And can you imagine the uproar when someone is refused service because of a religous symbol or piece of clothing they're wearing?
    If a business is open to the public, they have agreed to allow people on their property.
    It's very different from a private home / property.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  15. #40
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    What this "element of surprise" mentality REALLY means--and EVERONE needs to LISTEN to this, and realize (and ADMIT) that it is TRUE--is that CCers who believe this are the kind of people who WANT to shoot some bad guy, and are harboring vigilante tendencies. If you are CCing, and someone attacks you because you look like an unarmed sheeple, and you shoot them, that is nothing more than "entrapment"--you have intentionally "set up" a thug to think you are prey, JUST SO you can shoot one. Not all CCers believe this, so I'm not saying all CCers are sociopathic vigilantes, but some are, and we ALL need to admit that, and deal with the reality of that concept...
    And women shouldn't wear revealing clothes outside of their house, right? Because they are just BEGGING to be raped.

    Or we can place all the blame on the predator and none of the prey. The CCer wouldn't have had to shoot if attacker wasn't an attacker. I am not saying no one wants to shoot someone, but even if they are it isn't their fault if they had to shoot someone in self defense.

  16. #41
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    What she said.
    Other rights matter, but the right to self-defense is at least on a par with (if not superceding) the 1A rights that businesses may not infringe: religion, speech (at least in the form of what a person is wearing), association (who you walk around the store with). Without life, none of the other rights mean anything.

    That's exactly what other groups have done.
    When's the last time you saw a "no African Americans allowed" sign in a store window?
    Or "Irish keep out"?
    And can you imagine the uproar when someone is refused service because of a religous symbol or piece of clothing they're wearing?
    If a business is open to the public, they have agreed to allow people on their property.
    It's very different from a private home / property.
    So let me get this straight. You're reasoning is because other groups have done it means it is right? When the US was first starting out we allowed slaves. Now we moved passed that, but because whites once had blacks as slaves now blacks should be allowed to have white slaves? No. Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

    And you do realize that the bill of rights is what the government can't do, don't you? Not private individuals.

    Yes or no, without hand picking the parameters. Do you really believe that the government should have the authority to FORCE me to do business with someone?

  17. #42
    Regular Member .40S&W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post


    If you are CCing, and someone attacks you because you look like an unarmed sheeple, and you shoot them, that is nothing more than "entrapment"--you have intentionally "set up" a thug to think you are prey, JUST SO you can shoot one.
    I don't need to illustrate how ridiculous this statement is. People such as yourself that have this mentality do nothing to further the OC/CC cause. You're giving the antis ammunition (pun intended) against all of us when you use this rhetoric. You then go on to to say this isn't true for all people who CC but only some? I realize this is your opinion but it still doesn't diminish how harmful thoughts like this are.
    Never get complacent. Practice situational awareness. Stay alert stay alive.

  18. #43
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    This I agree on, but you don't need to come to my fictional business to be safe. If you don't like leaving you self protection at my property line then exercise your right to do business with who you choose somewhere else. I am not saying property rights trump everything else but unless you "need" to be there then you should abide by the rules of the property without government restrictions. The less government we have the more freedom we will be.
    I lived in a town where there was only one business--Walmart. Yeah, there were gas stations, a hole-in-the-wall diner but, most of the goods that were needed I could only get at Walmart. I would've loved to have other choices because I dread Walmart but, there were none. What's your solution, then? I drive 50 miles through backwoods country, sometimes in a blizzard, to shop elsewhere? If that Walmart wanted to say "no blacks", "no weapons", "no blondes", whatever, people were screwed. Property rights of a business should be on a lower necessity level than that of personal rights.

    So you're into reversed racism? The government should favor any group that society rejects? If I refuse to do business with BLACKS then they need a business that only caters to them? No. The government shouldn't get involved with that at all. I am not saying it is right, all I am saying is the government has no business in that. If I was refused service at a business based on my skin color I would go somewhere else, until I found a place that would serve me. Also, they're black. Not African-American, most were born and raised in the US and have no ties (besides ancestral) to africa. I am white not a "German-American". Treat other races how you want to be treated, it is a large step against racism.
    Moot point but, there are African-Americans, I didn't say all black people are African-American. Splitting hairs.

    No, I'm not into racism (Reversed racism? What's that? Isn't it all just "racism"?). It was just an example of what happens if a business owner decides to single out a group based on whatever group you want to pick. People, in general, are irresponsible and, on very limited cases, the government apparently does need to step in and say "Hey, be nice to people. You can't single out anyone because of their age, race, religion, blah blah blah." It needs to be that way because: See my experience in the small, never heard of town that I used to live in.
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  19. #44
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,379
    Quote Originally Posted by IdahoOpenCarry
    ...many CC'ers who oppose OC. Their most common response is, "It makes people feel uncomfortable." My answer to them is, "How do you know?"
    We all know that the vast majority of people don't notice, and those who do generally manage to take in the whole picture & figure out that the LAC is pushing a shopping cart just like they are (or having dinner, or whatever).

    At the risk of being labeled an attention *****, I'll admit I have several videos I've made of me OCing in various places around the city. I used a hidden camera so nobody knew they were being recorded except me. Mostly, nobody notices. The ones who do don't freak out, & some smile at me. Even in my bank.

    "It makes you a target for the BG's."
    There is no recorded evidence that an OC'er has been targeted by a BG.
    Actually there is one. A couple summers ago here in Milwaukee (MKE) a BG who was illegally ccing used the "can you light my cigarette" ruse to get close enough to commit armed robbery on a guy who was legally OCing. The victim even had to undo the retention holster himself, at gunpoint.
    But that's one incident out of how many millions of times by people across the country?
    If the crime were common, I think we'd hear more about it. If it were really common (like armed robberies in Chicago or NYC) it wouldn't make the news.
    I don't know why, but flipping the channels the other day I landed on a talk show segment where they were interviewing a woman in NYC who chased down the guy who stole her purse.
    See, that made the news because it's strange. (Isn't that sad?)

    And the most ridiculous excuse given by opponents is, "OC'ers are just posturing."
    Once again, this is projection.
    That's the reason they would carry openly, so it must be the reason everyone does.

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR
    I choose to engage in an active deterrence to crime, rather than passively possess the means to defend myself against a criminal who has already utilized their "element of surprise" to gain the upper hand prompting the need for defensive action.
    What he said.
    When you look like a sheepdog, the wolves will leave you alone.
    When you look like a sheep, the wolves will treat you like a sheep. You'll have to react, which gives the criminal the advantage.
    I'd rather they leave me alone in the first place.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  20. #45
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    I lived in a town where there was only one business--Walmart. Yeah, there were gas stations, a hole-in-the-wall diner but, most of the goods that were needed I could only get at Walmart. I would've loved to have other choices because I dread Walmart but, there were none. What's your solution, then? I drive 50 miles through backwoods country, sometimes in a blizzard, to shop elsewhere? If that Walmart wanted to say "no blacks", "no weapons", "no blondes", whatever, people were screwed. Property rights of a business should be on a lower necessity level than that of personal rights.

    Moot point but, there are African-Americans, I didn't say all black people are African-American. Splitting hairs.

    No, I'm not into racism (Reversed racism? What's that? Isn't it all just "racism"?). It was just an example of what happens if a business owner decides to single out a group based on whatever group you want to pick. People, in general, are irresponsible and, on very limited cases, the government apparently does need to step in and say "Hey, be nice to people. You can't single out anyone because of their age, race, religion, blah blah blah." It needs to be that way because: See my experience in the small, never heard of town that I used to live in.
    Yes, it is racism. It is racism to try to keep from being racism. I once had a friend who said "I like all black people" that would be reversed racism in a form. Racism in its simplest definition is grouping all/most/some people of the same race into a group. Like saying all black people are thugs, or white people can't jump, or asians are good at math. It isn't always against a race.

    My solution? If you are unhappy with the way walmart is treating you then start a competing business. Life isn't fair but when the government tries to make it fair they just turn the tables. You don't have to be there, they do. That is where their business is and they can't move it on a whim, but you can go somewhere else.

  21. #46
    Regular Member .40S&W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post


    What he said.
    When you look like a sheepdog, the wolves will leave you alone.
    When you look like a sheep, the wolves will treat you like a sheep. You'll have to react, which gives the criminal the advantage.
    I'd rather they leave me alone in the first place.
    Ok great but there are too many variables here. What if the BG comes at you from an angle where your weapon isn't visible? What if he doesn't care if your Glock is hanging off your waistband? What if he has his own weapon? The point I'm making is either form of carry is good because you never know what situation you're going to be in unless of course you can predict the future.
    Never get complacent. Practice situational awareness. Stay alert stay alive.

  22. #47
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    Yes, it is racism. It is racism to try to keep from being racism. I once had a friend who said "I like all black people" that would be reversed racism in a form. Racism in its simplest definition is grouping all/most/some people of the same race into a group. Like saying all black people are thugs, or white people can't jump, or asians are good at math. It isn't always against a race.

    My solution? If you are unhappy with the way walmart is treating you then start a competing business. Life isn't fair but when the government tries to make it fair they just turn the tables. You don't have to be there, they do. That is where their business is and they can't move it on a whim, but you can go somewhere else.
    So, a person is to give up their lifestyle to pursue their own business-making because another business is tromping all over their rights? A person is going to have to learn each and every single trade so they can take care of what needs to be taken care of because another business has banned redheads? Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

    Again, personal rights outweigh property rights--to an extent. If I need food, medication, clothing and there is one business that has that, it needs to be against the law that they refuse service to me because I have 10 fingers. I simply cannot learn how to run a business, where to order supplies, get necessary licenses, get necessary funding, etc fast enough that I would not starve to death. Plus, you chance that all businesses, farmers, shippers, on and on, will refuse service to people with 10 fingers. If that's the case then yes, you're absolutely screwed and yes, it should absolutely be against the law for anyone to restrict on such a basis and yes, the government should step in and say "Hey! WTF are you doing? Stop it."
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  23. #48
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    So, a person is to give up their lifestyle to pursue their own business-making because another business is tromping all over their rights? A person is going to have to learn each and every single trade so they can take care of what needs to be taken care of because another business has banned redheads? Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

    Again, personal rights outweigh property rights--to an extent. If I need food, medication, clothing and there is one business that has that, it needs to be against the law that they refuse service to me because I have 10 fingers. I simply cannot learn how to run a business, where to order supplies, get necessary licenses, get necessary funding, etc fast enough that I would not starve to death. Plus, you chance that all businesses, farmers, shippers, on and on, will refuse service to people with 10 fingers. If that's the case then yes, you're absolutely screwed and yes, it should absolutely be against the law for anyone to restrict on such a basis and yes, the government should step in and say "Hey! WTF are you doing? Stop it."
    Then I will ask this again. Yes or no. Without handpicking the parameters. Should the government have the authority to force anyone to do business with anyone? Even if they have a reason not to?

  24. #49
    Regular Member .40S&W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    Then I will ask this again. Yes or no. Without handpicking the parameters. Should the government have the authority to force anyone to do business with anyone? Even if they have a reason not to?
    I'll answer it for you. No. This is why I believe Affirmative Action and similar programs are absolutely unconstitutional.
    Never get complacent. Practice situational awareness. Stay alert stay alive.

  25. #50
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    Then I will ask this again. Yes or no. Without handpicking the parameters. Should the government have the authority to force anyone to do business with anyone? Even if they have a reason not to?
    To an extent. I stress that. I am by no means for an all-powerful government who controls everything but, there needs to be some rules and regulations to protect a people. Where that line is, we could sit here and debate up and down until the sun explodes. It's not as simple as a "yes" or "no". It's not black and white and I will not treat it as such.
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •