-
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.
Dress codes for open carry...
- Thread starter CZinVA
- Start date
MSC 45ACP
Regular Member
imported post
Actually, it held 4 D-cell batteries. "3 from the ring" was the three different strikes one would administer to the BG to talk him into not doing what he shouldn't have been doing in the first place.... The flashlight was held on the belt by a plastic ring that made it easier to slide out of the belt.
Some preferred the leather 2-snap leather strap that held it more securely because if you were climbing or jumping around on a boat, your flashlight wasn't as secure in the loose plastic ring and youcould lose your flashlight overboard and THAT would SUCK!
Actually, it held 4 D-cell batteries. "3 from the ring" was the three different strikes one would administer to the BG to talk him into not doing what he shouldn't have been doing in the first place.... The flashlight was held on the belt by a plastic ring that made it easier to slide out of the belt.
Some preferred the leather 2-snap leather strap that held it more securely because if you were climbing or jumping around on a boat, your flashlight wasn't as secure in the loose plastic ring and youcould lose your flashlight overboard and THAT would SUCK!
ProShooter
Regular Member
imported post
MSC 45ACP wrote:
Better still was the uniform pants that had the long, deep pocket on the right rear side that was made for the flashlight or leather sap.Now that's old school! You never saw that bad boy coming!
MSC 45ACP wrote:
Actually, it held 4 D-cell batteries. "3 from the ring" was the three different strikes one would administer to the BG to talk him into not doing what he shouldn't have been doing in the first place.... The flashlight was held on the belt by a plastic ring that made it easier to slide out of the belt.
Some preferred the leather 2-snap leather strap that held it more securely because if you were climbing or jumping around on a boat, your flashlight wasn't as secure in the loose plastic ring and youcould lose your flashlight overboard and THAT would SUCK!
Better still was the uniform pants that had the long, deep pocket on the right rear side that was made for the flashlight or leather sap.Now that's old school! You never saw that bad boy coming!
MSC 45ACP
Regular Member
imported post
Wow, ProShooter... You carried a SAP? You really ARE OLD School!
Haven't those been illegal for about 100 years? I justtook a quick look on the 'net andfound that some departments STILL carry them! Pretty amazing in this day and age...
Back OT: A sap or ASP would be a nice deterrent and good intermediate weapon for OC'ers (with proper training). I have a nice black ballistic nylon pouch for mine that goes with pretty much anything I wear. It wouldn't look out of place with a suit or shorts & T-shirt...
As I understand the law, I cannot carry an ASP as a civilian. :cuss:
Wow, ProShooter... You carried a SAP? You really ARE OLD School!
Haven't those been illegal for about 100 years? I justtook a quick look on the 'net andfound that some departments STILL carry them! Pretty amazing in this day and age...
Back OT: A sap or ASP would be a nice deterrent and good intermediate weapon for OC'ers (with proper training). I have a nice black ballistic nylon pouch for mine that goes with pretty much anything I wear. It wouldn't look out of place with a suit or shorts & T-shirt...
As I understand the law, I cannot carry an ASP as a civilian. :cuss:
ProShooter
Regular Member
imported post
MSC 45ACP wrote:
I never carried a sap, but I used that pocket for my big D cell flashlight. It fit just right! Now they don't even make the pocket in the pants anymore.
Traditions die hard sometimes.
MSC 45ACP wrote:
I never carried a sap, but I used that pocket for my big D cell flashlight. It fit just right! Now they don't even make the pocket in the pants anymore.
Traditions die hard sometimes.
MSC 45ACP
Regular Member
imported post
I know we're already OT, but...
I DIDN'T miss going from the big@$$ flashlight to the ASP. The ASP was much easier to control and more accurate in delivering what you needed where you needed it. You can also use it in the closed position and not have to take the time to extend if the situation warrants... A LOT lighter than that darn flashlight, too!!!
I know we're already OT, but...
I DIDN'T miss going from the big@$$ flashlight to the ASP. The ASP was much easier to control and more accurate in delivering what you needed where you needed it. You can also use it in the closed position and not have to take the time to extend if the situation warrants... A LOT lighter than that darn flashlight, too!!!
ProShooter
Regular Member
imported post
MSC 45ACP wrote:
MSC 45ACP wrote:
Way back when, all we had were flashlights, expecially during my time in Corrections. No one had pepper spray, ASP's, etc and PR-24's were only issued during jail riots. The riots were the only times that we saw the "hats and bats".
230therapy
Regular Member
imported post
Wear what you want.
However, I recommend that you don't go walking around like you just came out of the barn.
If you look like $#!^, I will tell you that you look like $#!^. Gun or no gun, if you wear shorts, white socks and black shoes, you look like $#!^. If you wear fatigues and a sleeveless shirt...you look like $#!^. Guess what? If you wear a $2000 suit with $500 shoes...and a gun...you still look like @#$%...but it's not because of the clothes.
A bit of fashion goes a long way with the ladies. Some of them will even overlook the gun after awhile.
Any "impression" you make because of your clothing is meaningless in terms of RKBA. By the virtue of the fact that you're openly carrying a gun, 90% of the population thinks you're an "extremist", "militia member", "gun nut" or "wack-o".
That's just the way it is. It doesn't stop me from openly carrying though...I just make sure my fashion passes "the female test".
Wear what you want.
However, I recommend that you don't go walking around like you just came out of the barn.
If you look like $#!^, I will tell you that you look like $#!^. Gun or no gun, if you wear shorts, white socks and black shoes, you look like $#!^. If you wear fatigues and a sleeveless shirt...you look like $#!^. Guess what? If you wear a $2000 suit with $500 shoes...and a gun...you still look like @#$%...but it's not because of the clothes.
A bit of fashion goes a long way with the ladies. Some of them will even overlook the gun after awhile.
Any "impression" you make because of your clothing is meaningless in terms of RKBA. By the virtue of the fact that you're openly carrying a gun, 90% of the population thinks you're an "extremist", "militia member", "gun nut" or "wack-o".
That's just the way it is. It doesn't stop me from openly carrying though...I just make sure my fashion passes "the female test".
virginiatuck
Regular Member
imported post
If OC implies association with anyone else, or a group, or a movement, then it is akin to a political belief or a "legal right." This topic of dress codes, or any other codes of conduct, is irrelevant. Because someone is carrying a firearm does not mean that they are part of your "movement."
OC does NOT imply association with anyone. :banghead:
Whether anyone perceives it to be association matters not! :cuss: To let it matter, and to conform as a result, undermines the moral premise.
OC, i.e. bearing arms, is a matter of natural right, not politics.:exclaim:
The attacks and ramifications that acknowledgers of the right to keep and bear arms suffer at the behest of oppressive government or societal politics are reprehensible. The overwhelming majority of people are good, and ought not be deprived of their natural rights, regardless of the activities or behaviors in which the bad partake; for the good will prevail over the bad only by the virtue of their natural rights.
Openly carrying a firearm is rather new to me, just over one year. However, my defense of an individual's right to carry about their lives any way they wish, no more than the extent that they shall not infringe on another's rights, is nothing new to me. I have held that core characteristic since as long as I could think. People who know me, and know the world in which we live, are not surprised by my adoption of open carry. If anything, they wonder why I did not adopt it sooner. All of my friends respect my decisions, as I respect theirs to live differently than myself. Those who openly carry, many of those who carry concealed, and even my friends, compatriots, and colleagues who do not carry often or at all, share at least one common adage: RIGHT.
There is a tendency among people to accept a single, loud voice, even the voice of a minority, as the voice of a majority; and to accept their perceived majority as right. The truth is that if you really talk through the issue with any people, you will find that they come from the same place as you. They don't want bad people to have weapons, they're apprehensive of what bad people can do, they have no real way to tell who is good or bad, nor when a seemingly good person will turn bad or when a bad person will turn good. Those who are against the universal right to bear arms also tend to have the same arguments against possessing arms as you have for possessing arms. They also will acknowledge that someone truly intent on harming others will at least partially achieve their goal, irregardless of stopgap measures such as "gun control.
When I hear someone express fear that someone they perceive as dangerous or troublesome does or may have a weapon, I respond with "then maybe you should have one, too." After all, how can they argue with that? Not that they don't exist, but I've never come across a proponent of arms control that ever said that they can not be trusted with a weapon. Break the threat down to its basic elements: for all you know someone may have a weapon and may be a threat to you; isn't the logical response that you have some sort of equalizing or superior weapon so that you may defend yourself against an attack by that person? It is illogical, and naive, that your defense comprise of a mere demand that the person disarm. Even then, their body weight or fighting prowess may leave you at a significant disadvantage. Arming yourself is all you have the right to do because you may actually be wrong in your assessment of the other person; they may not mean you any harm. You do not in fact know that a person is a threat until they become a real threat.
Often when a person is presented with a realistic example of a threat, backed by facts, and a rational defense against the bad people, such as the good being armed (in excess of or equal to the bad), it is accepted without reprove or rebuke. However, the question always comes back to "how do you tell the good from the bad?"
The answer is simply that you can not. Race, religion, creed, color, language, age, accent, or dress are not definitive indicators of behavior or threats. Many criminals live many decades before they commit crimes or threaten the life or limb of others. Many people dress and act a certain way simply as a defense against those who may threaten them or simply for comfort. Do you think that is wrong, just because it frightens you or someone else? All of the background checks, fingerprints, prejudices, mores, manners, and dress codes in the world can not adequately defend against all threats to national, public or personal safety. Of course those defense mechanisms help, and can stave off some threats; yet it seems the worst can find their way through the cracks, preying on our compassion and faiths in the "system." And more often than not, your first impression of a person's appearance does not do them justice.
Our natural rights are our last resort defense against the ills of the world; nobody should be deprived of their last resort. No, the world is not an overall bad place. We do not have to live in fear during all waking and sleeping hours; we merely have a duty to be prepared for the worst or suffer the consequences. As I've said already, the overwhelming majority of people in the world are good and trustworthy. That's sort of another way of saying that "all men are created equal..." Therefore, the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to due process and remaining innocent unless proven guilty must be the default for ALL people (that includes people with holes in their jeans). I beg anyone to differ. Before you do, though, I ask that you re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Then, try to think from the perspective of someone who distrusts people who wear suits; or khakis and golf shirts; or blues and badges; or crowns; or parachute pants... prejudice against dress goes both ways.
Nobody has presented any right, moral, or legal reason supporting a dress code. "Image" is all that anyone has come up with. Wear, or don't wear, whatever the #u(|< you want!
If OC implies association with anyone else, or a group, or a movement, then it is akin to a political belief or a "legal right." This topic of dress codes, or any other codes of conduct, is irrelevant. Because someone is carrying a firearm does not mean that they are part of your "movement."
OC does NOT imply association with anyone. :banghead:
Whether anyone perceives it to be association matters not! :cuss: To let it matter, and to conform as a result, undermines the moral premise.
OC, i.e. bearing arms, is a matter of natural right, not politics.:exclaim:
The attacks and ramifications that acknowledgers of the right to keep and bear arms suffer at the behest of oppressive government or societal politics are reprehensible. The overwhelming majority of people are good, and ought not be deprived of their natural rights, regardless of the activities or behaviors in which the bad partake; for the good will prevail over the bad only by the virtue of their natural rights.
Openly carrying a firearm is rather new to me, just over one year. However, my defense of an individual's right to carry about their lives any way they wish, no more than the extent that they shall not infringe on another's rights, is nothing new to me. I have held that core characteristic since as long as I could think. People who know me, and know the world in which we live, are not surprised by my adoption of open carry. If anything, they wonder why I did not adopt it sooner. All of my friends respect my decisions, as I respect theirs to live differently than myself. Those who openly carry, many of those who carry concealed, and even my friends, compatriots, and colleagues who do not carry often or at all, share at least one common adage: RIGHT.
There is a tendency among people to accept a single, loud voice, even the voice of a minority, as the voice of a majority; and to accept their perceived majority as right. The truth is that if you really talk through the issue with any people, you will find that they come from the same place as you. They don't want bad people to have weapons, they're apprehensive of what bad people can do, they have no real way to tell who is good or bad, nor when a seemingly good person will turn bad or when a bad person will turn good. Those who are against the universal right to bear arms also tend to have the same arguments against possessing arms as you have for possessing arms. They also will acknowledge that someone truly intent on harming others will at least partially achieve their goal, irregardless of stopgap measures such as "gun control.
When I hear someone express fear that someone they perceive as dangerous or troublesome does or may have a weapon, I respond with "then maybe you should have one, too." After all, how can they argue with that? Not that they don't exist, but I've never come across a proponent of arms control that ever said that they can not be trusted with a weapon. Break the threat down to its basic elements: for all you know someone may have a weapon and may be a threat to you; isn't the logical response that you have some sort of equalizing or superior weapon so that you may defend yourself against an attack by that person? It is illogical, and naive, that your defense comprise of a mere demand that the person disarm. Even then, their body weight or fighting prowess may leave you at a significant disadvantage. Arming yourself is all you have the right to do because you may actually be wrong in your assessment of the other person; they may not mean you any harm. You do not in fact know that a person is a threat until they become a real threat.
Often when a person is presented with a realistic example of a threat, backed by facts, and a rational defense against the bad people, such as the good being armed (in excess of or equal to the bad), it is accepted without reprove or rebuke. However, the question always comes back to "how do you tell the good from the bad?"
The answer is simply that you can not. Race, religion, creed, color, language, age, accent, or dress are not definitive indicators of behavior or threats. Many criminals live many decades before they commit crimes or threaten the life or limb of others. Many people dress and act a certain way simply as a defense against those who may threaten them or simply for comfort. Do you think that is wrong, just because it frightens you or someone else? All of the background checks, fingerprints, prejudices, mores, manners, and dress codes in the world can not adequately defend against all threats to national, public or personal safety. Of course those defense mechanisms help, and can stave off some threats; yet it seems the worst can find their way through the cracks, preying on our compassion and faiths in the "system." And more often than not, your first impression of a person's appearance does not do them justice.
Our natural rights are our last resort defense against the ills of the world; nobody should be deprived of their last resort. No, the world is not an overall bad place. We do not have to live in fear during all waking and sleeping hours; we merely have a duty to be prepared for the worst or suffer the consequences. As I've said already, the overwhelming majority of people in the world are good and trustworthy. That's sort of another way of saying that "all men are created equal..." Therefore, the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to due process and remaining innocent unless proven guilty must be the default for ALL people (that includes people with holes in their jeans). I beg anyone to differ. Before you do, though, I ask that you re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Then, try to think from the perspective of someone who distrusts people who wear suits; or khakis and golf shirts; or blues and badges; or crowns; or parachute pants... prejudice against dress goes both ways.
Nobody has presented any right, moral, or legal reason supporting a dress code. "Image" is all that anyone has come up with. Wear, or don't wear, whatever the #u(|< you want!
imported post
What you said is absolutely correct VT....BUT
When the Wimmin see me OC'ing, they don't run off and tell the Po leece, "there's a man with a gun",
they look at each other and say...He sure is PURDY !:dude: Just look at them BOOLITS.
virginiatuck wrote:
What you said is absolutely correct VT....BUT
When the Wimmin see me OC'ing, they don't run off and tell the Po leece, "there's a man with a gun",
they look at each other and say...He sure is PURDY !:dude: Just look at them BOOLITS.
virginiatuck wrote:
imported post
MSC 45ACP wrote:
Like someone else mentioned... asps are pretty good weapons and there is a lot of training out there for them. You can use an asp for some good control holds as well.
MSC 45ACP wrote:
Ahh flashlight justice. They have since replaced the police issued maglights with a light weight, plastic replica without any batteries and have it written that we cannot use it as a weapon unless for a lethal situation. I only use mine for traffic stops, but sometimes I see the old school guys carrying that and their night stick out on patrol. Guess they can't change with the times.Actually, it held 4 D-cell batteries. "3 from the ring" was the three different strikes one would administer to the BG to talk him into not doing what he shouldn't have been doing in the first place.... The flashlight was held on the belt by a plastic ring that made it easier to slide out of the belt.
Some preferred the leather 2-snap leather strap that held it more securely because if you were climbing or jumping around on a boat, your flashlight wasn't as secure in the loose plastic ring and youcould lose your flashlight overboard and THAT would SUCK!
Like someone else mentioned... asps are pretty good weapons and there is a lot of training out there for them. You can use an asp for some good control holds as well.
230therapy
Regular Member
imported post
While I agree with virginiatuck's philosophy on liberty, the sad fact of the matter is that the MSM and government have successfully associated anyone open carrying with:
1) the NRA
2) some sort of gun extremist group such as a militia or white power group
3) a high probability of being in some sort of religious organization.
4) a high probability the person is a registered Republican. Yes, there are people who think there are only two parties and anyone "not Democrat" is automatically a Republican.
The above has come from the mouths of many people I have interacted with who had no idea I was carrying concealed. Concealed carry is a great way to do "intelligence gathering".
Additionally, this government has aligned itself with the notion that ANYONE insisting upon exerting their natural rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, is a "pre-terrorist" (whatever that means), anti-government conservative prone to violence. They even mentioned "Ron Paul" supporters...a current member of Congress! This comes directly from those watch center reports.
We live in very unfortunate times where rights are maligned on a daily basis.
I still hold the opinion that one should look good when out and about. It certainly does affect how you are profiled.
And, yes, we all profile. It is a system that has worked for thousands of years and is hardcoded into our lizard brains.
********The following is an example based upon real life experience*********
If I see a guy OC'ing who is wearing bling, has his hat tilted off to one side, his pants are 10 sizes too large, has visible tattoos, who speaks using unintelligible babble and walks with "urban attitude"--I am going to make some assumptions:
1) This person is associated with a criminal gang. The tilt of the hat and bling will *probably* tell me which general gang type this person is associated with (Crips or Bloods or derivative).
2) Crimes have been committed by this person, but the presence of a firearm indicates he is either going to a fight or has not been convicted...yet.
3) There is at least one other scumbag around and I need to check the area.
I have seen enough assaults by such people that I do not trust them. I have seen their rude public behavior. I have watched them get drunk in public and proceed to act in destructive ways.
I also know guys who dress like this, but who work in IT as programmers. However, they are doing themselves a disservice by dressing in this way. If I did not know the person, I would make the same assumptions.
While I agree with virginiatuck's philosophy on liberty, the sad fact of the matter is that the MSM and government have successfully associated anyone open carrying with:
1) the NRA
2) some sort of gun extremist group such as a militia or white power group
3) a high probability of being in some sort of religious organization.
4) a high probability the person is a registered Republican. Yes, there are people who think there are only two parties and anyone "not Democrat" is automatically a Republican.
The above has come from the mouths of many people I have interacted with who had no idea I was carrying concealed. Concealed carry is a great way to do "intelligence gathering".
Additionally, this government has aligned itself with the notion that ANYONE insisting upon exerting their natural rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, is a "pre-terrorist" (whatever that means), anti-government conservative prone to violence. They even mentioned "Ron Paul" supporters...a current member of Congress! This comes directly from those watch center reports.
We live in very unfortunate times where rights are maligned on a daily basis.
I still hold the opinion that one should look good when out and about. It certainly does affect how you are profiled.
And, yes, we all profile. It is a system that has worked for thousands of years and is hardcoded into our lizard brains.
********The following is an example based upon real life experience*********
If I see a guy OC'ing who is wearing bling, has his hat tilted off to one side, his pants are 10 sizes too large, has visible tattoos, who speaks using unintelligible babble and walks with "urban attitude"--I am going to make some assumptions:
1) This person is associated with a criminal gang. The tilt of the hat and bling will *probably* tell me which general gang type this person is associated with (Crips or Bloods or derivative).
2) Crimes have been committed by this person, but the presence of a firearm indicates he is either going to a fight or has not been convicted...yet.
3) There is at least one other scumbag around and I need to check the area.
I have seen enough assaults by such people that I do not trust them. I have seen their rude public behavior. I have watched them get drunk in public and proceed to act in destructive ways.
I also know guys who dress like this, but who work in IT as programmers. However, they are doing themselves a disservice by dressing in this way. If I did not know the person, I would make the same assumptions.
imported post
CZinVA wrote:
Okay, I'll wear a tee shirt and jeans or tactical pants or if it's blazing hot even shorts. But they're always clean. I don't dress for carry, I dress for comfort. I have to wear a jacket every day downtown so that's not happening when I'm not in the city. If I could get away with open carry in the city for more than 5 seconds I would.
It's how you carry yourself, not what your wear, within reason.
Dave Vann
CZinVA wrote:
NO JEANS? My God man you go in, in your underwear? No wonder the bad guys stay away!
Okay, I'll wear a tee shirt and jeans or tactical pants or if it's blazing hot even shorts. But they're always clean. I don't dress for carry, I dress for comfort. I have to wear a jacket every day downtown so that's not happening when I'm not in the city. If I could get away with open carry in the city for more than 5 seconds I would.
It's how you carry yourself, not what your wear, within reason.
Dave Vann
DJEEPER
Regular Member
imported post
i see the OP is MIA....
i have been awaiting his response.... :quirky
i see the OP is MIA....
i have been awaiting his response.... :quirky
ChinChin
Regular Member
imported post
My job is not public relations and I don't give two figs about what somebody else thinks of me nor my appearance. If I were worried about how others perceived me then I wouldn't be open carrying in the first place and this would be a moot argument.
See what I did there?
My job is not public relations and I don't give two figs about what somebody else thinks of me nor my appearance. If I were worried about how others perceived me then I wouldn't be open carrying in the first place and this would be a moot argument.
See what I did there?