-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
AR OC
- Thread starter Kimberguy
- Start date
jeremy05
Regular Member
imported post
Glock 19 wrote:
Glock 19 wrote:
Hey its all opinion. except for the its legal and thats all that matters
T Vance
Regular Member
imported post
Glock 19 wrote:
Glock 19 wrote:
IIRC, you have not posted here in some time. The past few posts I have seen of yours you have made some rather rude comments. Just thought I would point that out.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
This topic is moot.
It is not a question any longer of lawful activity.
It is not in conformance with the acceptable posting rules that clearly detail the subject matter for discussion on this forum.
Whether we agree with the activity is not for discussion here. Again, not from a lawful standpoint, but the aspect of adhering to the rules of the forum.
I may not agree, but until I start my own forum, i'm a guest here and I will abide by the rules of my host.
This topic is moot.
It is not a question any longer of lawful activity.
It is not in conformance with the acceptable posting rules that clearly detail the subject matter for discussion on this forum.
Whether we agree with the activity is not for discussion here. Again, not from a lawful standpoint, but the aspect of adhering to the rules of the forum.
I may not agree, but until I start my own forum, i'm a guest here and I will abide by the rules of my host.
jeremy05
Regular Member
imported post
now im just confused! lol OC about a rifle is against the forum rules? Oh well Ill exit from this thread, but it just seems that people who are against the OC of a rifle are giving the people who do a hard time because they dont believe its good for one reason or another..... Seems a lot like the people who dont believe in OC of a handgun for one reason or another.
now im just confused! lol OC about a rifle is against the forum rules? Oh well Ill exit from this thread, but it just seems that people who are against the OC of a rifle are giving the people who do a hard time because they dont believe its good for one reason or another..... Seems a lot like the people who dont believe in OC of a handgun for one reason or another.
T Vance
Regular Member
imported post
jeremy05 wrote:
jeremy05 wrote:
Couldn't agree with you more, but like Pat mentioned, the founders of OCDO apparently don't want the discussion of long arms taking place on their forum.
Zukirider
Regular Member
imported post
very nice T hit that one dead on
very nice T hit that one dead on
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
jeremy05 wrote:
Huh? How do you get that conclusion, J05?
jeremy05 wrote:
Huh? How do you get that conclusion, J05?
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
HankT wrote:
dougwg wrote:
HankT wrote:
dougwg wrote:
Actually, I think HankT and dougwg make an excellent point here. It would do us all well (myself included) to keep this little tidbit in mind at all times.
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
That is why I say "for all lawful purposes"
That is why I say "for all lawful purposes"
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=1&forum_id=1&jump_to=644861#p644861
11) This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. Do not start OFF TOPIC threads or discussions such aspromoting the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the folks on 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, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=1&forum_id=1&jump_to=644861#p644861
11) This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. Do not start OFF TOPIC threads or discussions such aspromoting the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the folks on 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, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Well, there you have it. John and Mike want OCDO to focus on handguns. I, personally, agree with their assessment. Either way, this is their property and they have the final say.
Well, there you have it. John and Mike want OCDO to focus on handguns. I, personally, agree with their assessment. Either way, this is their property and they have the final say.
B
Bikenut
Guest
imported post
jeremy05 wrote:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/13328.html
if there is anything against the OCing of a long gun please show me? Please remember that not mentioning support for a specific thing does not equate to non support.
I still don't understand why there is so much confusion about an organization, MOC, that has decided to work for 2nd Amendment rights by limiting it's efforts to one segment of activist effort... the open carry of a holstered handgun.
Why does choosing to work for rights only in one fashion automatically mean the organization is against any other fashions of furthering rights? Actually, they are not against anything other than wanting to keep their efforts, and the discussions on their forum, focused on the purpose of MOC.
I look at it this way...
If I want to support the 2nd Amendment using MOC's methods then I will honor MOC's purpose while attending MOC events and it's forum.
If I want to support the 2nd Amendment with other methods I'll go do that somewhere else in order to not interfere with or diminish MOC's efforts.
Edited because I can't spell tonight for some reason.....:shock:
jeremy05 wrote:
Please go here:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/13328.html
if there is anything against the OCing of a long gun please show me? Please remember that not mentioning support for a specific thing does not equate to non support.
I still don't understand why there is so much confusion about an organization, MOC, that has decided to work for 2nd Amendment rights by limiting it's efforts to one segment of activist effort... the open carry of a holstered handgun.
Why does choosing to work for rights only in one fashion automatically mean the organization is against any other fashions of furthering rights? Actually, they are not against anything other than wanting to keep their efforts, and the discussions on their forum, focused on the purpose of MOC.
I look at it this way...
If I want to support the 2nd Amendment using MOC's methods then I will honor MOC's purpose while attending MOC events and it's forum.
If I want to support the 2nd Amendment with other methods I'll go do that somewhere else in order to not interfere with or diminish MOC's efforts.
Edited because I can't spell tonight for some reason.....:shock:
imported post
so then the biggest issue is the holster not the gun? if it was a holstered AR registered as a pistol this would be all null and void?
please verify now so the people that register and holster their AR like a pistol or have a SBR holstered don't get their balls busted for doing so!
is it the fact that it is a rifle or not in a holster?
so then the biggest issue is the holster not the gun? if it was a holstered AR registered as a pistol this would be all null and void?
please verify now so the people that register and holster their AR like a pistol or have a SBR holstered don't get their balls busted for doing so!
is it the fact that it is a rifle or not in a holster?
B
Bikenut
Guest
imported post
UCWT wrote:
But, to me, the terminology used in the "objectives and methods" is plain when it references "holstered handguns" to mean the exclusion of long guns.
And it is also plain to me that MOC supports the 2nd Amendment.... even if some don't agree with how MOC expresses that support.
UCWT wrote:
I can't speak for MOC concerning Michigan's unusual definition/registration of a "pistol"... perhaps a PM to one of the officers would give you their official stance on that issue? I think everyone would appreciate having that stance posted for all to see.....
But, to me, the terminology used in the "objectives and methods" is plain when it references "holstered handguns" to mean the exclusion of long guns.
And it is also plain to me that MOC supports the 2nd Amendment.... even if some don't agree with how MOC expresses that support.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
NavyLT wrote:
The stated purpose of this site is, and always has been, to promote the re-normalization of daily gun carry through the open carrying of firearms in public places.
I know there are many reasons to OC a long gun. I would personally applaud many of them in the proper context.
But, in the context of what this site is about, is there a single long gun OCer who actually believes that the sight of a long gun is more likely to convert than to repel any given fence-sitter?
That means, in a way, you, kimberguy. I'm not exactly asking what your reasons were; they are many, I'm sure, and some are doubtless valid when considered in the proper context.
What I'd just like to know is if anybody who actually OCs a long gun in an urban setting actually expects to advance the normalization and acceptance of the RKBA by doing so.
The reason I ask is that, it's all fine and good to carry a long gun for self-defense. People do that in grizzly country all the time. I have no qualm with that. If you feel you need that level of protection in an urban setting, I personally feel you should be not be restricted from having it. This is your right, and as long as you hurt no-one else there is no just reason to deprive you of it.
But I'm not asking about self-defense. I'm not questioning your right in any way,
What I'm asking is: in the context of this forum, and especially in the context of OC dinners clearly intended to function secondarily (if not primarily) as "normalization events", what exactly were you thinking?
Don't take this the wrong way: if you have a thought on that matter, I'd like to hear it. I'm open for discussion. There maybe be aspects of OC-as-normalization that I haven't considered. And if you didn't really think about it in terms of "normalizing", but were there solely to eat dinner and happened to have a rifle for self-defense, I suppose that lack of thought is your right as well. I'm just curious to know.
I wonder, because I think about it this way: I figure, people have a "tolerance threshold". The cool thing about handgun OC now is that people are still used to handguns. Cops have them all the time. People are just not used to seeing others without costumes and "training" have those handguns.
But, many if not most citizens fear the police (subconsciously if not outspokenly
). Although this may imply that there is an initial instinctual association of negatives, they will rapidly learn that they are not caused to feel the same way by citizen OCers, as we demonstrate that we are not going to arbitrarily assault them with "the law" -- or anything else for that matter -- a feat rarely managed in citizen-police interactions.
They will begin to become comfortable with us in a way they are not with police, which of course is the kind of personal interaction that allows for sympathetic consideration of things like, who we are and why we might decide to carry a handgun.
The problem with carrying an EBR in a restaurant -- carrying one to your car on the way to wherever is entirely different and a nonissue, of course, in the minds of most people who will naturally assume a range or hunting trip -- is that it's way beyond their familiarity zone. That puts it way outside their "tolerance threshold".
They will immediately think "even police don't do that". And they will wonder why, since they expect that it would be the police who have the greater need to defend themselves (although that expectation is not supported by statistical homicide rates). Some of them will be made afraid, thinking of what the media has to say about "assault rifles". Few of them will be comfortable to resolve these issues by initiating discourse.
So, the problem with the rifle is that it's increasing you distance from the average person's "familiarity zone". A handgun is a short hop for most rational people. A scary-looking rifle may well indeed be too far a leap for their minds to tolerate.
We need to give people credit, for being rational humans far more capable of living their lives than State and Statist would give them credit for. We also need to realize that humans are only humans, and permanent change is best wrought incrementally.
I'd really like to hear someone "on the other side" of the long-gun-OC-as-pragmatic" issue take some time to respond to my thoughts. Too much of this particular discussion has been far too superficial, and I have heard too much empty rhetoric and not enough thoughtful discourse. My thinking may be wrong, but I am not convinced yet.
NavyLT wrote:
Hold on just a second.
The stated purpose of this site is, and always has been, to promote the re-normalization of daily gun carry through the open carrying of firearms in public places.
I know there are many reasons to OC a long gun. I would personally applaud many of them in the proper context.
But, in the context of what this site is about, is there a single long gun OCer who actually believes that the sight of a long gun is more likely to convert than to repel any given fence-sitter?
That means, in a way, you, kimberguy. I'm not exactly asking what your reasons were; they are many, I'm sure, and some are doubtless valid when considered in the proper context.
What I'd just like to know is if anybody who actually OCs a long gun in an urban setting actually expects to advance the normalization and acceptance of the RKBA by doing so.
The reason I ask is that, it's all fine and good to carry a long gun for self-defense. People do that in grizzly country all the time. I have no qualm with that. If you feel you need that level of protection in an urban setting, I personally feel you should be not be restricted from having it. This is your right, and as long as you hurt no-one else there is no just reason to deprive you of it.
But I'm not asking about self-defense. I'm not questioning your right in any way,
What I'm asking is: in the context of this forum, and especially in the context of OC dinners clearly intended to function secondarily (if not primarily) as "normalization events", what exactly were you thinking?
Don't take this the wrong way: if you have a thought on that matter, I'd like to hear it. I'm open for discussion. There maybe be aspects of OC-as-normalization that I haven't considered. And if you didn't really think about it in terms of "normalizing", but were there solely to eat dinner and happened to have a rifle for self-defense, I suppose that lack of thought is your right as well. I'm just curious to know.
I wonder, because I think about it this way: I figure, people have a "tolerance threshold". The cool thing about handgun OC now is that people are still used to handguns. Cops have them all the time. People are just not used to seeing others without costumes and "training" have those handguns.
But, many if not most citizens fear the police (subconsciously if not outspokenly
). Although this may imply that there is an initial instinctual association of negatives, they will rapidly learn that they are not caused to feel the same way by citizen OCers, as we demonstrate that we are not going to arbitrarily assault them with "the law" -- or anything else for that matter -- a feat rarely managed in citizen-police interactions. They will begin to become comfortable with us in a way they are not with police, which of course is the kind of personal interaction that allows for sympathetic consideration of things like, who we are and why we might decide to carry a handgun.
The problem with carrying an EBR in a restaurant -- carrying one to your car on the way to wherever is entirely different and a nonissue, of course, in the minds of most people who will naturally assume a range or hunting trip -- is that it's way beyond their familiarity zone. That puts it way outside their "tolerance threshold".
They will immediately think "even police don't do that". And they will wonder why, since they expect that it would be the police who have the greater need to defend themselves (although that expectation is not supported by statistical homicide rates). Some of them will be made afraid, thinking of what the media has to say about "assault rifles". Few of them will be comfortable to resolve these issues by initiating discourse.
So, the problem with the rifle is that it's increasing you distance from the average person's "familiarity zone". A handgun is a short hop for most rational people. A scary-looking rifle may well indeed be too far a leap for their minds to tolerate.
We need to give people credit, for being rational humans far more capable of living their lives than State and Statist would give them credit for. We also need to realize that humans are only humans, and permanent change is best wrought incrementally.
I'd really like to hear someone "on the other side" of the long-gun-OC-as-pragmatic" issue take some time to respond to my thoughts. Too much of this particular discussion has been far too superficial, and I have heard too much empty rhetoric and not enough thoughtful discourse. My thinking may be wrong, but I am not convinced yet.
Haman J.T.
New member
imported post
Bikenut wrote:
Bikenut wrote:
This web site is OCDO, not MOC.Inc.
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
NavyLT wrote:
Since long guns are not considered concealable firearms (short of big jackets or transport cases) in many states, it's redundant to say they are open carried. Since handguns go either way, it helps to say if they're open or concealed.
Hopefully this makes sense.
NavyLT wrote:
In a way, it parallels what happened at the Ponderosa. Since "open carry" had not been explicitly linked to any specific weapon (handgun, long gun, blade, etc...), and that caused confusion, it was time to solidify the terminology.
Since long guns are not considered concealable firearms (short of big jackets or transport cases) in many states, it's redundant to say they are open carried. Since handguns go either way, it helps to say if they're open or concealed.
Hopefully this makes sense.
T Vance
Regular Member
imported post
UCWT wrote:
I posed the same questionsearlier today.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/37666.html
UCWT wrote:
I posed the same questionsearlier today.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/37666.html
zigziggityzoo
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Everyone seems to have forgotten the long gun OC march in Ohio (?) that happened in 2008 or 09 that happened without incident.
Convenient.
Everyone seems to have forgotten the long gun OC march in Ohio (?) that happened in 2008 or 09 that happened without incident.
Convenient.