OC Rifle event

[HankT]

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

HankT wrote:


A right unexcercised is a right lost!

A novelty undefended is a ....well...it's not a .... novel thing!

A right denied anywhere is a right denied everywhere!



....and there is no provision in the Constitution of these United States that responsibility of, for, and by, the individual is a requirement....


Wrong! Ifyou were to peruse 18USC you'd find certain aspects of criminality in near anything you could think of.

Are you equating the provisions of 18USC to the Constitution of the United States, SR?

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

HankT wrote:


A right unexcercised is a right lost!

A novelty undefended is a ....well...it's not a .... novel thing!

A right denied anywhere is a right denied everywhere!



....and there is no provision in the Constitution of these United States that responsibility of, for, and by, the individual is a requirement....


Wrong! Ifyou were to peruse 18USC you'd find certain aspects of criminality in near anything you could think of.

Are you equating the provisions of 18USC to the Constitution of the United States, SR?

Anything you have a right to do as an inedividual carries personal responsibility in the manner of the doing. Now... since you've never open carried more than a paperclip (legally) there in NJ... I really wouldn't say much about much if I were you.

 

[GWbiker]

imported post

LuvmyXD9 wrote:

Yes I live in Arizona, that should be painfully obvious by now as I'm in the Arizona subforum.

Not quite so. Too often we have "stray dogs" from other neighborhoods who wander into our yard to take a crap.

Again, I can barely stand the bull@#$% that brews in these threads. I believe in this cause because I want all of my fellow Americans to enjoy and understand the right of carrying a gun. Why would anyone want to join your cause if every time they turned around their political affiliation was getting bashed? It makes NO sense.

You're right - don't meet with us at a local OC function, just stand off and whine 'cause you don't agree with our "cause". You might meet with men who carried a weapon in war time or in peace time military, light years away from a College campus.

Look, I personally don't give a crap about your political values or if you even voted for BHO, BUT my advice is - if you can't stand the heat in this subforum.....then you should look for the kitchen door.

 

[LuvmyXD9]

imported post

GWbiker wrote:

LuvmyXD9 wrote:

Yes I live in Arizona, that should be painfully obvious by now as I'm in the Arizona subforum.

Not quite so. Too often we have "stray dogs" from other neighborhoods who wander into our yard to take a crap.

Again, I can barely stand the bull@#$% that brews in these threads. I believe in this cause because I want all of my fellow Americans to enjoy and understand the right of carrying a gun. Why would anyone want to join your cause if every time they turned around their political affiliation was getting bashed? It makes NO sense.

You're right - don't meet with us at a local OC function, just stand off and whine 'cause you don't agree with our "cause". You might meet with men who carried a weapon in war time or in peace time military, light years away from a College campus.

Look, I personally don't give a crap about your political values or if you even voted for BHO, BUT my advice is - if you can't stand the heat in this subforum.....then you should look for the kitchen door.

I can handle the heat just fine thanks tough guy. I meet with plenty of people who've played in the sand box. One of my best friends is DoD now after a nice career with the Army. A vast majority of my friends are OIF veterans.

I know it's a hard concept to grasp, but generally when you're trying to recruit in a political atmosphere (and 2A is VERY political) it helps to be politically NEUTRAL to avoid polarization. Trying to get the anti-gun crowd will UNDOUBTEDLY have you run into a democrat. Spewing the anti-dem rhetoric will make them run as far away from the 2A cause as they can.

So stop the intimidation grandpa before you give yourself a stroke.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

GWbiker wrote:

LuvmyXD9 wrote:

Yes I live in Arizona, that should be painfully obvious by now as I'm in the Arizona subforum.

Not quite so. Too often we have "stray dogs" from other neighborhoods who wander into our yard to take a crap.

Again, I can barely stand the bull@#$% that brews in these threads. I believe in this cause because I want all of my fellow Americans to enjoy and understand the right of carrying a gun. Why would anyone want to join your cause if every time they turned around their political affiliation was getting bashed? It makes NO sense.

You're right - don't meet with us at a local OC function, just stand off and whine 'cause you don't agree with our "cause". You might meet with men who carried a weapon in war time or in peace time military, light years away from a College campus.

Look, I personally don't give a crap about your political values or if you even voted for BHO, BUT my advice is - if you can't stand the heat in this subforum.....then you should look for the kitchen door.

Whoa... I carried weapons in war (not just wartime) and 'fired them in anger. At '23' I was an E-5, so age has little to do with anything. I agree with XD9 that OC'd long guns in a public setting are beyond the pale and serve no useful purpose other than to incite bad karma 'just 'cause it's legal'.

 

[protector84]

imported post

Ok, I have to agree with GWBiker and some of the others. The best way to find out what we are all about is to show up to an OC event. I have been to four OC dinners now and I'm sure I don't agree with everyone's politics but I get along just fine and enjoy the events. I regret that I didn't make the last two. There is an old saying, "you can please some people all of the time and all people some of the time but you can't please all people all of the time." Anytime you get 50 or more people together you have virtually no chance that every single one of them will agree on everything but that is not the point. The goal of these events is to promote the right to keep and bear arms and bring awareness to OC.

The worst that is going to happen to you if you come to an OC dinner is either that you don't like the food or you just don't mix very well with people and I bet both are highly unlikely. We are not scary gun-toting nuts, just normal friendly people who believe in the right to bear arms. We also enjoy eating out at restaurants as do most Americans. So before you start calling us a bunch of nuts, actually try to see what we are all about because internet forum debates are quite different from real OC events. I'm still not sure if I want to go to a long gun OC event particularly a politically-motivated one but I'm not here trashing others who are considering it. I support the right to freedom of speech as well as the right to bear arms and if someone wants to exercise both I will support it. Even if I don't agree with what they believe in or support and even if I think their firearm is a piece of crap, I still defend their rights to do that. Enough said.

 

[LuvmyXD9]

imported post

protector84 wrote:

Ok, I have to agree with GWBiker and some of the others. The best way to find out what we are all about is to show up to an OC event. I have been to four OC dinners now and I'm sure I don't agree with everyone's politics but I get along just fine and enjoy the events. I regret that I didn't make the last two. There is an old saying, "you can please some people all of the time and all people some of the time but you can't please all people all of the time." Anytime you get 50 or more people together you have virtually no chance that every single one of them will agree on everything but that is not the point. The goal of these events is to promote the right to keep and bear arms and bring awareness to OC.

The worst that is going to happen to you if you come to an OC dinner is either that you don't like the food or you just don't mix very well with people and I bet both are highly unlikely. We are not scary gun-toting nuts, just normal friendly people who believe in the right to bear arms. We also enjoy eating out at restaurants as do most Americans. So before you start calling us a bunch of nuts, actually try to see what we are all about because internet forum debates are quite different from real OC events. I'm still not sure if I want to go to a long gun OC event particularly a politically-motivated one but I'm not here trashing others who are considering it. I support the right to freedom of speech as well as the right to bear arms and if someone wants to exercise both I will support it. Even if I don't agree with what they believe in or support and even if I think their firearm is a piece of crap, I still defend their rights to do that. Enough said.

Then what's with all the bashing on here?

You don't like Arpaio? Damn you're an illegal lover.

Oooooooo you voted for barack HUSSEIN obama.
The little dems from kali.
(Continue inserting stupid sayings here)

If it were a neutral territory I'd have no problem supporting it. But it's not, and you guys (knowingly or not) will drive away people from the cause simply by the repeated crap that flows from this forum.

I've got thick skin.....I have no problem sitting back here going wit for wit with the dumb comments. It's entertainment to me. But people leaning on the fence are going to just find some of you guys.......unstable.

 

[HankT]

imported post

HankT wrote:

....and there is no provision in the Constitution of these United States that responsibility of, for, and by, the individual is a requirement....

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Wrong! Ifyou were to peruse 18USC you'd find certain aspects of criminality in near anything you could think of.

HankT wrote:

Are you equating the provisions of 18USC to the Constitution of the United States, SR?

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Anything you have a right to do as an inedividual carries personal responsibility in the manner of the doing...

Weak.

Very weak......

I'll take it that you agree that USC and the Constitution of the United States are not the same, SR.

There is no constitutional requirement forcing individuals to be responsible. As we see from time to time here and elsewhere.

You lose the point. Again.

 

[like_the_roman]

imported post

I had a similar idea when Arpaio was here in Tucson at a speaking engagement at Barnes and Noble** and the La Raza kids that I went to school with would be there. Common sense got the better of me and I decided against it. And open long gun carry is on shaky legal ground anyway.

ARS 13-3102:
A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:
1. Carrying a deadly weapon without a permit pursuant to section 13-3112 except a pocket knife concealed on his person;
G. Subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section shall not apply to a weapon or weapons carried in a belt holster that is wholly or partially visible, carried in a scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons that is wholly or partially visible or carried in luggage. Subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section shall not apply to a weapon or weapons carried in a case, holster, scabbard, pack or luggage that is carried within a means of transportation or within a storage compartment, map pocket, trunk or glove compartment of a means of transportation.


So, merely slinging a rifle over your back isn't quite covered by the letter of the law, it would have to be in a belt holster (good luck) or in a case for carrying weapons. Just leave the long guns in the truck and open carry sidearms instead. There's nothing to be gained from open carrying a long gun, particularly anywhere near Arpaio, who is armed enough to handle his own security.

** My big question is: did he try to book the engagement at BORDERS first, or was the irony inherent in the name just too much for people to handle?

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

HankT wrote:

HankT wrote:

....and there is no provision in the Constitution of these United States that responsibility of, for, and by, the individual is a requirement....

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Wrong! Ifyou were to peruse 18USC you'd find certain aspects of criminality in near anything you could think of.

HankT wrote:

Are you equating the provisions of 18USC to the Constitution of the United States, SR?

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Anything you have a right to do as an inedividual carries personal responsibility in the manner of the doing...

Weak.

Very weak......

I'll take it that you agree that USC and the Constitution of the United States are not the same, SR.

There is no constitutional requirement forcing individuals to be responsible. As we see from time to time here and elsewhere.

You lose the point. Again.

Take your 'points' and sit on 'em Hank. The Constitution enumerates Rights. USC enumerates limitations. You have the 'Right' to carry a gun... You do not have the 'Right' to rob a bank with one. That's a personal responsibility. When you actually start carrying a sidearm or any other weaponbeyond the confines of your abode on your hip... I might give you the time of day. You don't... so I won't.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

HankT wrote:

HankT wrote:

....and there is no provision in the Constitution of these United States that responsibility of, for, and by, the individual is a requirement....

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Wrong! Ifyou were to peruse 18USC you'd find certain aspects of criminality in near anything you could think of.

HankT wrote:

Are you equating the provisions of 18USC to the Constitution of the United States, SR?

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Anything you have a right to do as an inedividual carries personal responsibility in the manner of the doing...

Weak.

Very weak......

I'll take it that you agree that USC and the Constitution of the United States are not the same, SR.

There is no constitutional requirement forcing individuals to be responsible. As we see from time to time here and elsewhere.

You lose the point. Again.

Take your 'points' and sit on 'em Hank. The Constitution enumerates Rights. USC enumerates limitations. You have the 'Right' to carry a gun... You do not have the 'Right' to rob a bank with one. That's a personal responsibility. When you actually start carrying a sidearm or any other weaponbeyond the confines of your abode on your hip... I might give you the time of day. You don't... so I won't.

More obfuscation. Do you not tire of continuing to display your failure to even rebut the initial statement, SR?



Does Sonora Rebel really know whattime it is?

Does Sonora Rebeleven care?

Doo doo do doo doo....

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

HankT wrote:

More obfuscation. Do you not tire of continuing to display your failure to even rebut the initial statement, SR?



Does Sonora Rebel really know whattime it is?

Does Sonora Rebeleven care?

Doo doo do doo doo....

Y'know... all you are is a continual confrontational PITA. STFU! 'You read that? Go away 'n take your mindless BS with you.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

OK, enough of the Hank T trollishness and the other sniping.

So this is my attempt to bring this interesting thread back to a real discussion. Remember, we can disagree without being disagreeable. The 300 meter target is the Brady Bunch, not each other.

Are those of youwho do not like the idea of this proposed long gun open carry event opposed to:

A) The open carry of firearms (hand gun or long guns) at this event;

or

B) The open carry of long guns (but not hand guns) at this event;

or

C) The open carry of long guns except in rural/isolated areas?

These are different topics and I think we are having overlapping discussions. Please add D) E) and F) if you oppose the proposal for other reasons.

 

[like_the_roman]

imported post

Open carry for political reasons is a bad idea. Look at what happened to California. The Black Panthers open carried as part of their political agenda, and the final nail in the open-carry coffin was their storming of the capitol. Their actions totally backfired and the California contingent of open-carriers has to deal with the fallout (unloaded carry in city limits, licensing of open carry permits only to small counties, etc.)

The best way to keep open carry legal in Arizona is to do it often and in normal, everyday situations, as was the case before concealed carry was introduced in '94. Being intentionally provocative by carrying around long guns and carrying guns to political rallies is not normal behavior. People may accept seeing long guns stored in racks inside pickup trucks, but walking around Target with a AR or AK pattern rifle is not in good taste.

If you feel you must counter-protest the Marxists who are gunning for Arpaio (excuse the bad pun) -- carry a pistol and conceal while you do it. Showing up with long guns and pistols exposed while the Marxists are only carrying signs, flags, and banners makes open carriers look like they are itching for a firefight and since Joe may end up in the governor's seat soon, it would look real bad on his record if his supporters got into some kind of violent confrontation at a rally held in his defense.

So, I'm against A, B, and C.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

The 'be reasonable' argument is always a failure. I have to agree with the Professor on this one. His argument is logical, where the 'be reasonable' argument is anything but.

Sonora, you had to leave the same state I am in... Would you like Arizona to become no better? Kommiefornia IS importing it's anti-gun crap to your state. OC of ANYTHING scares stupid people who have been brainwashed. Exposing them to it un-brainwashes them. Sometimes, maybe, usually, there are no absolutes.

It is a step. Another step. If you expose people to the reality that carrying an AR-15 doesn't 'cause' anything bad to happen... Then certainly your, and eventually my, 1911 will be even less threatening to them; as it should be. In effect, carrying an AK or an AR is using their own propaganda against them.

"If the big bad scary so-called 'assault weapon' didn't 'do' anything bad, well, then surely a 1911 is even less of a big deal...." They have classified that so-called 'assault weapon' as being somehow worse than other guns. Sure, we know it's a load of bunk. But most people don't. Use the enemy's own lies against them. If the AR was nothing to fear, then the supposedly 'regular' guns can't be either.

'Being reasonable' is what allowed the gun haters to spread their bunk in the first place. If sitting on your thumbs caused the problem, it cannot possibly be the solution.

 

[LuvmyXD9]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

The 'be reasonable' argument is always a failure.  I have to agree with the Professor on this one.  His argument is logical, where the 'be reasonable' argument is anything but.

Sonora, you had to leave the same state I am in...  Would you like Arizona to become no better?  Kommiefornia IS importing it's anti-gun crap to your state.  OC of ANYTHING scares stupid people who have been brainwashed.  Exposing them to it un-brainwashes them.  Sometimes, maybe, usually, there are no absolutes.

It is a step.  Another step.  If you expose people to the reality that carrying an AR-15 doesn't 'cause' anything bad to happen...  Then certainly your, and eventually my, 1911 will be even less threatening to them; as it should be.  In effect, carrying an AK or an AR is using their own propaganda against them.

"If the big bad scary so-called 'assault weapon' didn't 'do' anything bad, well, then surely a 1911 is even less of a big deal...."  They have classified that so-called 'assault weapon' as being somehow worse than other guns.  Sure, we know it's a load of bunk.  But most people don't.  Use the enemy's own lies against them.  If the AR was nothing to fear, then the supposedly 'regular' guns can't be either.

'Being reasonable' is what allowed the gun haters to spread their bunk in the first place.  If sitting on your thumbs caused the problem, it cannot possibly be the solution.

My argument is perfectly logical, you just don't like it. Your rights are not a toy to amuse yourself with. A large group of long guns will bring negative attention. Open carry your sidearm that you carry everywhere else? Sure no problem. Just don't be a Neanderthal about it.

Our job is to EDUCATE, not SCARE.

 

[LuvmyXD9]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

OK, enough of the Hank T trollishness and the other sniping.

So this is my attempt to bring this interesting thread back to a real discussion.  Remember, we can disagree without being disagreeable.  The 300 meter target is the Brady Bunch, not each other.

Are those of you who do not like the idea of this proposed long gun open carry event opposed to:

A) The open carry of firearms (hand gun or long guns) at this event;

or

B) The open carry of long guns (but not hand guns) at this event;

or

C) The open carry of long guns except in rural/isolated areas?

These are different topics and I think we are having overlapping discussions.  Please add D) E) and F) if you oppose the proposal for other reasons.

 

B and C. If you're in an environment (like hiking) and your chances of coming across an animal that would require a medium or large caliber to overcome then by all means sling a rifle.

I still think it would be wiser to schedule our own events. Counter-protesting just seems in bad taste imo.

 

[LuvmyXD9]

imported post

like_the_roman wrote:

Open carry for political reasons is a bad idea. Look at what happened to California. The Black Panthers open carried as part of their political agenda, and the final nail in the open-carry coffin was their storming of the capitol. Their actions totally backfired and the California contingent of open-carriers has to deal with the fallout (unloaded carry in city limits, licensing of open carry permits only to small counties, etc.)

The best way to keep open carry legal in Arizona is to do it often and in normal, everyday situations, as was the case before concealed carry was introduced in '94. Being intentionally provocative by carrying around long guns and carrying guns to political rallies is not normal behavior. People may accept seeing long guns stored in racks inside pickup trucks, but walking around Target with a AR or AK pattern rifle is not in good taste.

If you feel you must counter-protest the Marxists who are gunning for Arpaio (excuse the bad pun) -- carry a pistol and conceal while you do it. Showing up with long guns and pistols exposed while the Marxists are only carrying signs, flags, and banners makes open carriers look like they are itching for a firefight and since Joe may end up in the governor's seat soon, it would look real bad on his record if his supporters got into some kind of violent confrontation at a rally held in his defense.

So, I'm against A, B, and C.

Do please enlighten me on what makes me a Marxist, I'd love to hear this.

 

[like_the_roman]

imported post

LuvmyXD9 wrote:

like_the_roman wrote:

Open carry for political reasons is a bad idea. Look at what happened to California. The Black Panthers open carried as part of their political agenda, and the final nail in the open-carry coffin was their storming of the capitol. Their actions totally backfired and the California contingent of open-carriers has to deal with the fallout (unloaded carry in city limits, licensing of open carry permits only to small counties, etc.)

The best way to keep open carry legal in Arizona is to do it often and in normal, everyday situations, as was the case before concealed carry was introduced in '94. Being intentionally provocative by carrying around long guns and carrying guns to political rallies is not normal behavior. People may accept seeing long guns stored in racks inside pickup trucks, but walking around Target with a AR or AK pattern rifle is not in good taste.

If you feel you must counter-protest the Marxists who are gunning for Arpaio (excuse the bad pun) -- carry a pistol and conceal while you do it. Showing up with long guns and pistols exposed while the Marxists are only carrying signs, flags, and banners makes open carriers look like they are itching for a firefight and since Joe may end up in the governor's seat soon, it would look real bad on his record if his supporters got into some kind of violent confrontation at a rally held in his defense.

So, I'm against A, B, and C.

Do please enlighten me on what makes me a Marxist, I'd love to hear this.

Um, judging from your past posts in this thread, you and I are largely on the same page on this -- OC of a long gun is a bad idea. We even share a similar background (young, college students.) I'm not a Republican, I don't care which party is in charge as long as they support the rights of all citizens.

As far as your political views go, you may not be an Marxist in the classical sense ("common ownership of the means of production" and all that) but rather in the cultural sense -- undermining the ability of Arpaio to keep the illegals out of Arizona means the state is going to inevitably look socially, economically, politically, and like our neighbors to the west and south within the near future. I would prefer that not to happen.

 

[LuvmyXD9]

imported post

like_the_roman wrote:

LuvmyXD9 wrote:

like_the_roman wrote:

Open carry for political reasons is a bad idea. Look at what happened to California. The Black Panthers open carried as part of their political agenda, and the final nail in the open-carry coffin was their storming of the capitol. Their actions totally backfired and the California contingent of open-carriers has to deal with the fallout (unloaded carry in city limits, licensing of open carry permits only to small counties, etc.)

The best way to keep open carry legal in Arizona is to do it often and in normal, everyday situations, as was the case before concealed carry was introduced in '94. Being intentionally provocative by carrying around long guns and carrying guns to political rallies is not normal behavior. People may accept seeing long guns stored in racks inside pickup trucks, but walking around Target with a AR or AK pattern rifle is not in good taste.

If you feel you must counter-protest the Marxists who are gunning for Arpaio (excuse the bad pun) -- carry a pistol and conceal while you do it. Showing up with long guns and pistols exposed while the Marxists are only carrying signs, flags, and banners makes open carriers look like they are itching for a firefight and since Joe may end up in the governor's seat soon, it would look real bad on his record if his supporters got into some kind of violent confrontation at a rally held in his defense.

So, I'm against A, B, and C.

Do please enlighten me on what makes me a Marxist, I'd love to hear this.

Um, judging from your past posts in this thread, you and I are largely on the same page on this -- OC of a long gun is a bad idea. We even share a similar background (young, college students.) I'm not a Republican, I don't care which party is in charge as long as they support the rights of all citizens.

As far as your political views go, you may not be an Marxist in the classical sense ("common ownership of the means of production" and all that) but rather in the cultural sense -- undermining the ability of Arpaio to keep the illegals out of Arizona means the state is going to inevitably look socially, economically, politically, and like our neighbors to the west and south within the near future. I would prefer that not to happen.

So essentially what your saying anyone against Arpaio is automatically for illegals? There is no alternative to arpaio and his gross corruption?

And don't take this as hostility, it's not. I'm just trying to attempt to understand why against arpaio = for illegals, marxist, etc.