Difference between a rifle and pistol and how to prove it to cops who arrest you for open carrying ?

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

...However, the reality is that you will experience more unwanted conversations with local LEO's than a person under identical conditions carrying a more conservative sidearm. That view is not ANTI as some have claimed, it is just a fact.

Moreover, I think you have already proven the truth of that view in this thread. Add to that the confusion as to weather this is a rifle or a handgun among LEOs and there are bound to be issues. Heck you couldn't even avoid referring to this weapon as both a rifle and a handgun in this thread, how are the police supposed to know what it is. To them it first appears to be a sawed off rifle, and that is not unreasonable for an uninitiated person.

I don't think I was whining too much. I filed the complaints so that I would have a record of the occurance. I will send out letters so they have no excuse to violate my rights in the future. I sincerely doubt anything will come of my complaints, but someone will investigate and they might come to a decision that 2.5  hour detentions are not necesary.

I think I have rifle on the brain.:lol:

just as you should. If your rights have been violated you should fight back. That is NOT whining and I did not mean to imply that it was. What I was trying to get across is that nothing you have described is necessarily unexpected. It may not be right but it is not unexpected. So complaining about it HERE is not productive. FIle as many complaints as possible. But it will be hard to show that your "handgun" is not a rifle unless the person you are dealing with is a gun guy, and that is unlikely.

Do not confuse people in this forum recognizing facts for what they are, with a lack of support for your basic position. The fact that you have decided to take a course that is less travelled, will necessarilary draw unwanted attention. People here will suggest ways for you to work the problem and build to your desired result, rather than going for the gold all at once.

While you seem to "get" this concept, it is clear that others in the discussion do not understand the difference between recognition and agreement with the facts of a situation. So by your leave I will address that issue.:lol:

"slowfiveoh" ... Just for the record, an Ultralight is legally NOT an airplane and as such they are NOT subject to federal regulation. So as a matter of law, I do have a RIGHT to fly it. For ULs there is no training requirement and no license required. Sound familiar? So the comparison is very legitimate. By not understanding this fact you have proven the value of the example, as apparently you are not able to recognize the difference between an airplane and a vehicle. I have had to prove that my craft was NOT an airplane many times. KIND OF LIKE TRYING TO PROVE MY CARRY PIECE IS A HANDGUN IF IT LOOKS LIKE A WIDELY RECOGNIZED TYPE OF RIFLE.

So far all your argument has shown me is that you do not have the capacity to understand this discussion. Your discussion is completely filled with unwarranted gratuitous assumption and personal attacks and can be dismissed on that basis. I have never suggested that OP could not carry what ever he wants, I have only recognized that as a matter of proven fact it will draw unwanted attention to him. You seem incapable of this level of analytical thought, so we really do not have any basis for discussion. Recognition of a fact does not by default mean agreement. When you grow out of your bravado you will know that, and you can sit at the big table.

Regards

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

"slowfiveoh" ... Just for the record, an Ultralight is legally NOT an airplane and as such they are NOT subject to federal regulation. So as a matter of law, I do have a RIGHT to fly it.

Incorrect. You have the capability of flying it, without any regulatory law being imposed on your ability to fly it. It is not a protected right, nor part of the BoR. I am full well familiar with the lack of licensing needed to fly a ultralight, and would really like to have one someday. However, I recognize, and know, the difference between an inalienable right, and other "freedoms" not specifically granted via the Constitution. If the FAA were to all of a sudden restrict signiticantly the ability to purchase, own, or operate an ultralight, you would have no consitutional or otherwise law to stand on at all. THAT is the difference.

For ULs there is no training requirement and no license required. Sound familiar? So the comparison is very legitimate.

Please read above. Thanks.

By not understanding this fact you have proven the value of the example, as apparently you are not able to recognize the difference between an airplane and a vehicle. I have had to prove that my craft was NOT an airplane many times. KIND OF LIKE TRYING TO PROVE MY CARRY PIECE IS A HANDGUN IF IT LOOKS LIKE A WIDELY RECOGNIZED TYPE OF RIFLE.

So his Constitutionally protected ability to carry a pistol of his choice somehow compares to the non-consitutionally guaranteed freedom you experience with your ultralight, and being that the two are completely, and wholly seperate things entirely, the fact that you have experienced difficulties with other governing bodies or agencies regarding your ultralight, justifies unscrupulous activity on behalf of law enforcement. Gotcha...:banghead:

So far all your argument has shown me is that you do not have the capacity to understand this discussion. Your discussion is completely filled with unwarranted gratuitous assumption and personal attacks and can be dismissed on that basis.

Where have I made a personal attack?

I have never suggested that OP could not carry what ever he wants, I have only recognized that as a matter of proven fact it will draw unwanted attention to him. You seem incapable of this level of analytical thought, so we really do not have any basis for discussion. Recognition of a fact does not by default mean agreement. When you grow out of your bravado you will know that, and you can sit at the big table.

Regards

I am sure my "bravado" is only overshadowed by statements like, "Now you can sit at the big boys table", so on, and so forth. Am I correct? Perhaps you could further iterate why I am "incapable of X level of analytical thought", because your commentary about an ultralight has to be the worse attempt to draw a parrallel I have ever seen right?

May you only carry concealed, and with the smallest firearm available to you, so that you do not "alarm" the general public with your choice of firearm. Again, this must be "openbutyoushouldcarryconcealedcarry.com" right?

He is carrying a firearm classified as a pistol. He was detained for carrying a pistol. Do you feel he should be detained for carrying a pistol? Yes or no? If "Yes", sorry that is your unconsitutionally founded opinion, and we can agree to disagree. If "No", why are you giving this guy crap? Because hedoesn't carry what you like to?

 

[ecocks]

imported post

Wandering by and slowed to pitch my two cents worth in....

Carrying any forearm visibly, anywhere runs the risk that someone will take offense. be concerned or become frightened. We all put up with that periodically.

Most gun owners don't carry at all. They leave them home in a drawer, on a closet shelf, in a lockbox or forgotten in a shoebox Grandpa put in the basement 65 years ago and forgot.

Most that do carry, carry concealed because of a perceived tactical advantage, their local laws or to avoid confrontation with other citizens, LEO's, businessmenor their employers.

Of those that do carry openly, most carry traditionally styled handguns, be they revolvers or automatics. These are seen in action and combat movies, on store shelves and described in books. We still get occasional (or frequent) hassles due to the reactions of others around us. We know it, we try to prepare for it and, if we are mature, responsible citizens, we don't carry on about how put upon or inconvenienced we are by the resulting difficulty.

You absolutely have the right to carry it.

You bought it because YOU liked it. Many people, even other gun owners, don't agree with you that it is practical for the purpose of self-defense. Don't be surprised if others react in a more extreme fashion.

Tough. Nothing in the 2A says anything about self-defense per se. The generally understood intent was to provide a means for the people to protect themselves from not only other people but also to provide a restraint onour government when it contemplates actions which are not accepted by the governed.

Be prepared for the reactions of others and pursue your own educational program for the masses.

If someone, be they citizen, LEO, businessman, whatever, is driven to react in an unlawful manner it makes no difference from minute to minute whether you are right or wrong, only with whether you have the character, fortitude and sense to live through it.

It happened. Great. You are carrying out your educational program with both citizens and law enforcement agencies. You can be proud of yourself. Post your story with documentation and facts, then leave your ego at the door. Quit debating with the forum a case that you say is under investigation. If I was investigating this situation, I'd be googling for stuff like this. You've already made some missteps and we're not even anti carry or anti gun types here.

As someone says upthread, careful what you wish for, you might get it.

So, live through it. Do what you can to educate your fellow citizens and LEO's. When the situation is resolved, let us know how it worked out.

Then invite discussion of the topic and addressing of the issue of proper public reactions to "those dangerous black military weapons" being displayed in public.

Good Luck.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

"slowfiveoh" ... Just for the record, an Ultralight is legally NOT an airplane and as such they are NOT subject to federal regulation. So as a matter of law, I do have a RIGHT to fly it.

Incorrect. You have the capability of flying it, without any regulatory law being imposed on your ability to fly it. It is not a protected right, nor part of the BoR. I am full well familiar with the lack of licensing needed to fly a ultralight, and would really like to have one someday. However, I recognize, and know, the difference between  an inalienable right, and other "freedoms" not specifically granted via the Constitution. If the FAA were to all of a sudden restrict signiticantly the ability to purchase, own, or operate an ultralight, you would have no consitutional or otherwise law to stand on at all. THAT is the difference.

...SNIP

Actually you are very wrong again. The Constitution does not "GRANT" anything, it RECOGNIZES pre-existing rights. Moreover our society here in the US is Prohibitive not permissive, so the legal structure is based on laws specifically outlining what a person may NOT do. Therefore if something is not mentioned it is permitted. While you may not understand the difference, it is significant. As you say, flying is not mentioned in either the Constitution or the BOR, guess what that means. Also you may want to look at the 10th amendment. Since the Constitution does not mention flying or a lot of other things, the power to regulate is reserved to the states or to the people, NOT the federal government. In fact all of the current federal regulations in a lot of areas are accomplished through distortions of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Unfortunately you do not understand the Constitution, the law, or the nature of this discussion in sufficient depth for us to continue our chat.

Regards

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Insightful, logical and well said ecocks

This thread for whatever merit/benefit it may be able to generate, is being buried in an avalanche of animosity with too much he said-she said rhetoric.

OCDO is committed to hearing different opinions, pro and con on many issues germane to OC & RKBA. Posters are not expected to demand that their viewpoints meet with approval and/or that they can retaliate with shouting, abrasion, phrasing to indicate an "attitude." When one comes in with what turns out to be a less than fully popular idea or approach, they will get a less than supportive response - expect it and deal with it with some grace - use logic, facts but not the aforementioned "attitude."

Those critical of a poster's position must limit themselves to making their statements without being insulting, argumentative tone or belaboring a point. The same limitations are imposed as those directed above.

All very difficult sometimes, especially when feelings run high; however, necessary if we are to preserve the quality of OCDO, limit our negative public exposure and continue to be a forum where such things can be discussed.

We all need to abide by these guidelines or we have no right to post here - regardless of the believed merit in our personal position or topic.

This is my personally held, strong opinion. I do not pretend to speak for the owners of this forum. I can feel sure though that by now it has been observed as a blip on their radar. I see no reason that we cannot comply with their desire that we should be as "self-moderating" as possible.

No offense intended to any party.

Yata hey

 

[Superlite27]

imported post

The more I think about it, the more I'm coming around to kwikrnu's point of view.

At first read through, I thought:

"What an idiot. He's basicly packing a machine pistol around to goad the cops and frighten the sheeple, and getting away with it over a technicality."

But the more I think about it, the more I realize that those of us who are bashing him are dancing on the edge of hypocrisy.

I open carry, not only because it is my right, but to provide an opportunity to educate people. When I conceal my sidearm, it's "out of sight/out of mind". Nobody is going to question the status quo. There's no (visible) stimulous to do so. When I carry openly, I do it so the general public can see that normal folks posess the right to legally protect themselves using a firearm. I have been questioned by the police several times and, since I am breaking no law, have been sent on my way.

I guess you could call this "gettingaway with it overa technicality".

After thinking about carrying an AK pistol, my first reaction was "what an idiot", but after applying rational analysis, I'm beginning to have second thoughts. To my horror, I am starting to realize something that is very problematic:

WE are the frightened sheeple this time.

We all laugh at the witless masses who are frightened by our openly carried firearms. We lament the fact that these morons are ignorant of our right to bear arms. We, who realize that the 2nd Amendment is more than mere words on a document, often look down our noses at the general public for not realizing thatthe 2nd Amendmentis "REAL". We can actually carry GUNS!

We readily complain and lambaste those who see one of us carrying a sidearm for reacting negatively to our choice and questioning our intelligence........

....Yet when kwikrnu chooses to carry legally and it's something we don't like.....

...we react negatively and question his intelligence.

Is this leaving the taste of hypocrisy in anyone else's mouth? To be honest, I'll have to admit detecting it's awful flavor in mine. We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Although I don't agree with his method, and I don't like the manner in which he chooses to express his right since I believe it doesn't represent the open carry movement in a positive light, I will have to admit that there isn't anything wrong in what he is doing. Just because carrying a machine pistol isn't something I would personally do, I can no longer view kwikrnu's choice in a negative way.

He is merely expressing his right in a manner different than my personal choice. This is what the world consists of. Different people making different choices. Maybe some of us who complain aboutthe sheeple failing to see ourperspectiveon self defence should consider taking our own advice.


I still think the orange muzzle is stupid.

 

[Sabotage70]

imported post

SL27 said it much more eloquently than I could have. After thinking about it over night. I have noticed that on this message board, normal usually equates to sheep.

 

[Marco]

imported post

An AR/AK pistol isn't a MACHINE PISTOL, just like an AR-15 isn't an Assault rifle, neither are full automatic.

Though they may look scary they are just pistols, a missed shot from one of these is no more deadly than a missed shot from most other suitable defensivepistol calibers.

I can't believe that members have stated the OP deserves negative attention from LE because of his choice of carry weapon.
If I read this wrong I apologize in advance

I can't believe the hypocrisy.
Some of you people sound like the anti's bashing us for carry our handguns.

With that in mind I'll be carry my .44mag Legacy Bounty Hunter for a few weeks.

 

[CommonMan101]

imported post

Every time someone steps a little beyond what has been the "norm" it gets unwarranted attention. kwikarnu is breaking that ground for all of us. The only risk I see is that it may inspire some antis with legislative abilities because they always operate from the sensational point of view. If it seems shocking they can sell it no matter the reality - because it makes "common sense" since no one is used to it.

I think it's a good thing to make progress incrementaly to gain wider acceptance of some things. Some efforts are better servedby overwhelming from all angles but I thinkkwikarnu'sthing being done as a loner can go either way. Remember, the Black Panthers weren't breaking any law when they marched with loadedshotguns at the time - but the law was changedfor the bad because of it! Lot of good it did for them to exercise their right in the face of their antagonists.

That would be the only caution I have to offer - don'tturnit intoan "in your face" deal that inspires some new restrictions. Hate to see anything go backwards.

I have had rules changed when no one would listen to my argument by playing them out so they saw the wrongness of it. Please don't be that unintentional guy on gun rights and have all of us end up with less than we have now. Just saying...

We can be screwed by an anti going through the process to get a full auto, even joining the NRA and GOAand sacrificing his life going on a rampage just to make everyone look bad and get some traction for gun ban laws. You could be seen that way - whether you intend thator not. That underlyingtruth may be where you are getting resistance from here. It's possible that you are, essentially, no different than an anti trying to screw things up.

Phrase of the day: Beware of un-intended consequences.

 

[MatieA]

imported post

I have never considered the legal differences between rifle, and pistol before, but thought I would throw a link for a video to you. It might help or it might be way off-base for what you are asking.

http://www.ak-47.us/Article_Detail.php?g=content1259300114

 

[Thundar]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

An AR/AK pistol isn't a MACHINE PISTOL, just like an AR-15 isn't an Assault rifle, neither are full automatic.

Though they may look scary they are just pistols, a missed shot from one of these is no more deadly than a missed shot from most other suitable defensivepistol calibers.

I can't believe that members have stated the OP deserves negative attention from LE because of his choice of carry weapon.
If I read this wrong I apologize in advance

I can't believe the hypocrisy.
Some of you people sound like the anti's bashing us for carry our handguns.

With that in mind I'll be carry my .44mag Legacy Bounty Hunter for a few weeks.

Atually there may be a difference in the balistics of the bullet. 7.62 x 39 has a much higher speed than a traditional handgun round which means mor chance of overpenetration, but also superior vest penetration.

That being said I have been and remain on kwikrnu's side. He is legal. You may disagree with his choice, but that doesn't mean you should throw him under the bus.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

With that in mind I'll be carry my .44mag Legacy Bounty Hunter for a few weeks.

I have open carried a 6" s&w 29 in a belt holster to that park several times. I was only asked for my permit once. I was asked for it by the park manager. The same man who jumped out of his truck with the shotgun pointed at me.

 

[PT111]

imported post

You do not have a constitutionally protected "right" to fly ANY aircraft. The choice of analogy isn't that great.

Why wouldn't one have a right to fly an airplane just like they have a right to drive a car or walk? I would think that flying would fal under the free travel doctrine but I will admit that the FAA does control the safety aspect of it however certain aircraft are not controlled by the FAA. If you say that we don't have the right to fly then we also wouldn't have the right to ride a horse.

Rebuttals welcome.

 

[CommonMan101]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

You do not have a constitutionally protected "right" to fly ANY aircraft. The choice of analogy isn't that great.

Why wouldn't one have a right to fly an airplane just like they have a right to drive a car or walk? I would think that flying would fal under the free travel doctrine but I will admit that the FAA does control the safety aspect of it however certain aircraft are not controlled by the FAA. If you say that we don't have the right to fly then we also wouldn't have the right to ride a horse.

Rebuttals welcome.

I'm not so sure about the right to fly but I'm under the impression that if your ultralight has no passenger seat then you do not need a license to fly it. Isn't that the same thing as freedom to fly without Govt involvement?

I think you'd get into trouble for flying where you shouldn't though. But not just the act of flying itself.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

CommonMan101 wrote:

PT111 wrote:

You do not have a constitutionally protected "right" to fly ANY aircraft. The choice of analogy isn't that great.

Why wouldn't one have a right to fly an airplane just like they have a right to drive a car or walk?  I would think that flying would fal under the free travel doctrine but I will admit that the FAA does control the safety aspect of it however certain aircraft are not controlled by the FAA.  If you say that we don't have the right to fly then we also wouldn't have the right to ride a horse.

Rebuttals welcome.

 

I'm not so sure about the right to fly but I'm under the impression that if your ultralight has no passenger seat then you do not need a license to fly it. Isn't that the same thing as freedom to fly without Govt involvement?

I think you'd get into trouble for flying where you shouldn't though. But not just the act of flying itself.

This is very close to the fact of the matter. If the craft weighs less than 255 Lbs, carries 5 gal or less fuel, only one seat, and cannot exceed 65 knots in level flight, then it is NOT an airplane under federal regulations, and their use is not regulated beyond a stipulation that they are flown in daylight under visual flight rules. In fact if you crash one, neither the FAA or the NTSB will investigate because it is not in their jurisdiction to do so.

But here was the point.

While it is legal to fly a UL, and even to use public airport facilities with appropriate equipment, it is almost guaranteed that at most airports where the FAA maintains a presence, you will get ramp checked. Now replace Ultralight with AK handgun and you see my point.

I am NOT saying that I agree with the police stopping and checking someone. I AM saying it is a fact of life that it will happen if the firearm a person carries attracts attention because it is radically outside the mainstream.

I am also NOT saying that people do not have the right to carry such a firearm, clearly they DO. I am also NOT saying that I think it is right or fair for the police to react the way they did in this case, but I AM saying it was a predictable reaction.

I amazes me that people cannot separate recognition of facts from advocacy of the positions those facts may represent. I do not agree that the police are correct in stopping someone for carrying an AK, but I recognize that until this becomes common, they ARE going to stop people. Just because I see this as the truth of the situation does not make me anti-rights. Moreover, recognizing these facts does not mean that I am slamming this guy for his choice of firearm.

That said, I do not have to hold a blind eye to the fact that any rational person who chooses this course of action could reasonably foresee the possible outcome and therefore that person should not be shocked when those possibilities become reality. I also do not have to "go along to get along". The true anti-rights people are those who would shut down OPEN discussion of the facts of the situation by attacking those who are willing to honestly recognize ALL of the facts and discuss them in context. This is not about supporting or not supporting the OP it is about seeing the situation for what it is, and reaching a resolution. If we cannot recognize that the police are going to react to a person carrying an AK without being called an anti for doing so, then there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Marco]

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Agent19 wrote:

With that in mind I'll be carry my .44mag Legacy Bounty Hunter for a few weeks.

I have open carried a 6" s&w 29 in a belt holster to that park several times. I was only asked for my permit once. I was asked for it by the park manager. The same man who jumped out of his truck with the shotgun pointed at me.

6" S&W not really the same thing.







Thundar wrote:

Actually there may be a difference in the balistics of the bullet. 7.62 x 39 has a much higher speed than a traditional handgun round which means more chance of overpenetration, but also superior vest penetration.

That being said I have been and remain on kwikrnu's side.

Hope you don't believe I have a problem with the OP's choice, because I don't.
I just have no usefor them.

Considerpeople carry/use handguns chambered in 5.7x28 (original loadings), .30Carbine, .22Hornet, .44mag, .41mag, .357mag, 10mm, 9x25, .454Casull and other magnum calibers the margin of performance in favor of 5.56 or 7.62x39 is slim to nonewhen fired from a handgun (especially when you consider muzzle flash)especially if the above chamberings leave from a 6" barrel or longer.
I will give the edge to the rifle calibers (fired from a pistol) for DBA but even that is sitting on the razors edge, steel core ammo is available in none rifle calibers.



[line]
Just because a firearm looks more mencaing than another doesn't justify LE to harrass those that aren't breaking the law.

Truth be told they probably will stop youfor carry something exotic,consider it racial profiling.

 

[PT111]

imported post

Hawkflyer - I agree completely with your analogy and facts are facts. If you walk aroun dwith a gun like that you are going to gather attention not only from the LEO but from the public. If I saw someone carrying one around in Wal-Mart I probably wouldn't say anything unless there was some other reason but would thing there goesa weirdo. Stop by your local building with a load of 55 gallon drums withwires sticking out the top going to a black boxon the back of your truck and you are going to get attention. The barrels may be empty but someone is going to question you. get out of your car make sure the guard sees you and stick your gun in your waistband mexican carry style whilewalking into a bank and you are going to get the attention you want.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Stop by your local building with a load of 55 gallon drums withwires sticking out the top going to a black boxon the back of your truck and you are going to get attention. The barrels may be empty but someone is going to question you.

That would be considered a hoax device in Tennessee. Hoax devices are illegal.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

PT111 wrote:

Stop by your local building with a load of 55 gallon drums withwires sticking out the top going to a black boxon the back of your truck and you are going to get attention. The barrels may be empty but someone is going to question you.

That would be considered a hoax device in Tennessee. Hoax devices are illegal.

Then soshould be'orange tips' on real guns. I can't figure what your pushing for... a 'false arrest' paycheck possibly... or somebody's going to pull and unloadon you for real, first. You are the 'goof with a gun' by any standard. Congratulations.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Actually you are very wrong again. The Constitution does not "GRANT" anything, it RECOGNIZES pre-existing rights. Moreover our society here in the US is Prohibitive not permissive, so the legal structure is based on laws specifically outlining what a person may NOT do. Therefore if something is not mentioned it is permitted. While you may not understand the difference, it is significant. As you say, flying is not mentioned in either the Constitution or the BOR, guess what that means. Also you may want to look at the 10th amendment. Since the Constitution does not mention flying or a lot of other things, the power to regulate is reserved to the states or to the people, NOT the federal government. In fact all of the current federal regulations in a lot of areas are accomplished through distortions of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Unfortunately you do not understand the Constitution, the law, or the nature of this discussion in sufficient depth for us to continue our chat.

Regards

I like the consistent backpedaling, and full fledged effort to discredit my commentary. I am furthermore puzzled by your insistence that I am "incapable" of having this conversation based on some sort of presumptuous lack of analytical thought.

Here are some thoughts:

You are belittling this gentlemans right to carry whatever he likes, while claiming to support open carry and the 2A. You are being hypocritical. For all your sheer wisdom you are espousing, you certainly seem to be missing this point.

You are justifying it, by comparing a freedom that is NOT a consitutionally protected right. (No matter how you try to spin words this is the absolute truth. The 10th amendment would not hold if the FAA or other sanctioning/governing bodies decided that UL's needed to be further regulated, just as small private planes are.)

You do not understand the Consitution as well as you think you do, as the inalienable rights granted to us shall not be regulated. Otherwise they become "regulations" and not "rights". Power not expressly granted by the people would certainly hold water, if he creation of the FAA (actually the Air Commerce Act) were not voted on and passed. There goes that theory.If you have a problem with the FAA as being unconsitutional, maybe you should create an organization and spread the word.

Far as I know, this is a gun forum. The 2A shall not be infringed. Your justifying of this gentlemen as being somehow deserving of scrutiny because of what he carries is disgusting. Again, in my lowly non-intellectual terms. Why don't you carry the smallest gun you can find, concealed, with the smallest caliber you can find. Wouldn't want to cause any problems am I right?

Why is it the majority of people here are SEEING the hypocrisy. Heck there have been tons of comments so far, but you for whatever reason cannot make this admission.

Interesting.