Reply With QuoteI 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.Originally Posted by yale
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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)...
Only by cops...
Only by bad cops, in localities that don't believe in the Constitution, or enjoyt being sued into oblivion.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's exactly what other groups have done.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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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."It makes you a target for the BG's."
There is no recorded evidence that an OC'er has been targeted by a BG.
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?)
Once again, this is projection.And the most ridiculous excuse given by opponents is, "OC'ers are just posturing."
That's the reason they would carry openly, so it must be the reason everyone does.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
