Something I've noticed regarding CC vs OC supporters

[marshaul]

Concealed carry is NOT a armed check on government, or a check on anybody else.

What a bunch of baloney!

The 4th amendment is a check on government, by making it difficult to prohibit simple contraband.

The 2nd amendment is a check on government, by ensuring the people are always armed.

And you think there's no utility in combining the two and concealing guns from government? Get real. Even handguns have uses beyond ordinary self-defense.

Incidentally, your prior assertion that concealed carry is new is false. Up until the 19th century, holsters we uncommon and pistols were carried nearly universally concealed, or at least in the waistband or garments where there is no hard line between "open" and "concealed".

Again, win back the right to carry first, then fight all the less significant battles to make carry convenient.

The right won't be one until it is respected as a right, which means no infringements. Which means constitutional carry.

There's no cart to put before the horse here.

Oh for God's sake. It says the right to bear arms. Not how, but that we all can. Why are you guys so willing to get caught up in these pointless arguments when your energies could be spent making a difference. The important thing is that we're carrying, right? Otherwise, you're no worse that the close minded CCers that dog on us for OC.

Come on guys...\

+1

 

[mdak06]

Just looked up the the word "to bear" in an 18th century dictionary......1. to carry as a burden 2. to convey or carry 3. to carry as a mark of authority .......

Plus several more like to hold up as in bearing walls, which can definitely be hidden.

Common law and natural law dictates when two meanings are presented in law the most innocent is the meaning we must interpret.

So the right to keep and bear arms ( which isn't granted in the 2A we are born with it) has no other limitations on it concealed open etc.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PT7#v=onepage&q&f=false This is the dictionary....you have to scroll down.

Edit: To ad looks like that dictionary was given as a gift to someone in 1828, so maybe the meanings drifted.....just maybe.....

Followed the link - the date of the dictionary itself is "MDCCLXVIII" ... in Arabic numerals, 1768. So presumably, those definitions you listed were the definitions of the word when the US Constitution was drafted.

FWIW, I don't see anything about either "display" or "conceal" in those first few definitions. I just see "carry."

Edited to add: Here's a link to the "second edition" of this dictionary: http://books.google.com/books?id=z3kKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP5#v=onepage&q&f=false

It essentially has the same first few definitions of "to bear."

(FYI, I found the link here: http://www.lexilogos.com/english/english_modern_early.htm )

 

[eye95]

Actually, it say that your right to carry cannot be infringed. Since it does not say that any perceived right to cover it up cannot be infringed, that action, separate from the carry itself, is not protected.

Do I think we should be able to cover our firearm without having to obtain a permission slip? Of course.

I am simply saying two things: Concealment is not constitutionally protected. And, focussing on concealing is detracting from the fight to restore the actual Right.

Make sure that you can carry everywhere. Then fight to be able to cover it.

Priorities, folks, priorities.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[marshaul]

Actually, it say that your right to carry cannot be infringed. Since it does not say that any perceived right to cover it up cannot be infringed, that action, separate from the carry itself, is not protected.

Do I think we should be able to cover our firearm without having to obtain a permission slip? Of course.

I am simply saying two things: Concealment is not constitutionally protected. And, focussing on concealing is detracting from the fight to restore the actual Right.

Make sure that you can carry everywhere. Then fight to be able to cover it.

Priorities, folks, priorities.

Considering these arguments have been outright refuted, and eye95 refuses to rebut (but rather repeats himself), I submit to the forum that his continued posting on the subject is without merit.

 

[MackTheKnife]

Considering these arguments have been outright refuted, and eye95 refuses to rebut (but rather repeats himself), I submit to the forum that his continued posting on the subject is without merit.

CONCUR!

Razor Max Tapatalk.

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

If you believe it is a right, STAND UP for it as a right. Don't slink and then brag about it with the excuse you are a law abiding citizen. Obeying a illegal law is not law abiding, it is breaking the constitution.

Are you on oxygen or is that ivory tower pressurized? The law is not illegal, despite what you or I might think, until the Supreme Court rules that it is. Your mischaracterization of me and others who obey the laws where we live is unwarranted, rude, and wrong. As I said before:banghead:, we have changed the laws here in Oklahoma where we didn't have any mechanism to carry handguns at all. First we got concealed carry (with a permission slip). Then, we added open carry (still with the permission slip). We're now working on constitutional carry, but it takes time.

BTW, I thought this thread was about unwarranted CC attitudes about OC. If you think it should be about unwarranted constitutional carriers attacking "licensees," how about you start your own thread?

I'm done discussing this with you.

ECS

 

[WalkingWolf]

Are you on oxygen or is that ivory tower pressurized? The law is not illegal, despite what you or I might think, until the Supreme Court rules that it is. Your mischaracterization of me and others who obey the laws where we live is unwarranted, rude, and wrong. As I said before:banghead:, we have changed the laws here in Oklahoma where we didn't have any mechanism to carry handguns at all. First we got concealed carry (with a permission slip). Then, we added open carry (still with the permission slip). We're now working on constitutional carry, but it takes time.

BTW, I thought this thread was about unwarranted CC attitudes about OC. If you think it should be about unwarranted constitutional carriers attacking "licensees," how about you start your own thread?

I'm done discussing this with you.

ECS

A law is void if it is unconstitutional, that is the opinion of both the supreme court and law revue. The courts do not make a law constitutional or unconstitutional. So if you believe the law is legal, you do not believe it is a right.

 

[papa bear]

Holstered vs. brandished was not mentioned either.

The 2A mentions only what is protected: Carry. It mentions no attendant behaviors. So what. As long as you can carry, regulation of attendant behaviors does not stop the carry, and the carry is uninfringed.

Again, win back the right to carry first, then fight all the less significant battles to make carry convenient.

EYE, i had to go back and get his out of the trash bin, because i thought of something that has effected us here in NC. the latest bill we have had is definitely pro privilege. it goes out of the way to restrict OC. puts all the benefits to CHP

but mainly what that makes me think of is losing our rights to OC. if we keep pushing CC and making OC harder we will eventually lose our right to carry. all of the people that have a hand in CC profit are making it where if some sheeple sees a gun they are going to scream bloody murder

i am just saying beware of pushing a privilege you might just loose a right

 

[WalkingWolf]

EYE, i had to go back and get his out of the trash bin, because i thought of something that has effected us here in NC. the latest bill we have had is definitely pro privilege. it goes out of the way to restrict OC. puts all the benefits to CHP

but mainly what that makes me think of is losing our rights to OC. if we keep pushing CC and making OC harder we will eventually lose our right to carry. all of the people that have a hand in CC profit are making it where if some sheeple sees a gun they are going to scream bloody murder

i am just saying beware of pushing a privilege you might just loose a right

+1

And the winds in the GA will change, might be 2 years, might be 4 years but they will change. What privilege the GA giveth, they can just as easily take it away.

 

[DamonK]

Way to completely hi-jack a thread guys... How do you not realize that you are part of the problem? Seriously, you make us look like a bunch of Looney toons. :screwy:

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[marshaul]

Way to completely hi-jack a thread guys... How do you not realize that you are part of the problem? Seriously, you make us look like a bunch of Looney toons. :screwy:

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

This thread was pretty much about this from the get-go. Look at the title.

 

[eye95]

Way to completely hi-jack a thread guys... How do you not realize that you are part of the problem? Seriously, you make us look like a bunch of Looney toons. :screwy:

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

Yours is the only off-topic post I see.

Well, this one by me now.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Red Dawg]

Why don't you tell those in NY or MD who can't carry at all that they don't believe in the right?

Like WW said, in MD, it's a fact that LACs have been carrying guns for many, many years. Concealed, means CONCEALED...In my neck of the woods, people know that people are armed...Now, hmm, which one of those country boys do I want to try and rob? Bad idea, so it is pretty dad gum rare.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Concealed carry is NOT a armed check on government, or a check on anybody else. A CC looks just like any other subject or victim. The whole intent of the 2A was in fact deterrence by bearing arms. You can't have a deterrence if nobody knows about it. And it damn sure is not a right if you have to ask permission.

Most people in the time of the BOR did not even own a handgun, they owned long guns which could not be concealed. Handguns were used by the navy and dueling pistols, they were not the arms of the time. There is nothing in the militia acts about handguns/pistols. Citizens were expected to be armed with muskets, now I don't know about anybody else, but concealing a musket is not going to be practical.

Holstered vs. brandished was not mentioned either.

The 2A mentions only what is protected: Carry. It mentions no attendant behaviors. So what. As long as you can carry, regulation of attendant behaviors does not stop the carry, and the carry is uninfringed.

Again, win back the right to carry first, then fight all the less significant battles to make carry convenient.

What a bunch of baloney!

The 4th amendment is a check on government, by making it difficult to prohibit simple contraband.

The 2nd amendment is a check on government, by ensuring the people are always armed.

And you think there's no utility in combining the two and concealing guns from government? Get real. Even handguns have uses beyond ordinary self-defense.

Incidentally, your prior assertion that concealed carry is new is false. Up until the 19th century, holsters we uncommon and pistols were carried nearly universally concealed, or at least in the waistband or garments where there is no hard line between "open" and "concealed".



The right won't be one until it is respected as a right, which means no infringements. Which means constitutional carry.

There's no cart to put before the horse here.



+1

Answered better than I could.

 

[MackTheKnife]

I am not going to make any headway but these opinions are just so insane (didn't say idiotic) it makes you wonder what planet these guys are from. These say if you have a "permission slip" to carry, you don't believe in the right. Gee, I guess I served 31 years in the military because I didn't believe in the Constitution and the rights defined therein. Despite swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution every time I reenlisted. I guess I should have called my CO an ******* when he deserved it and my 1st Amendment rights would have kept me out of trouble.
And "you know guys who CC in MD" where you can't carry period legally? If they believed in the right, they would just OC and exercise their Constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment.
You guys are really out there.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

 

[marshaul]

These say if you have a "permission slip" to carry, you don't believe in the right.

Who said that?

I've heard folks say you're not exercising the right, but to my knowledge nobody has impugned your belief.

 

[DamonK]

Who said that?

I've heard folks say you're not exercising the right, but to my knowledge nobody has impugned your belief.

Actually, walking wolf said nearly those exact words...

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[dudeman1]

CC vs OC

What a crock of SHT! We as CC and OC people are suppose to be supporting each other, and supporting our rights and cause, not bickering and being stuck up or discussing who is the best. We all carry, we all go by the same rules. Its a personal choice, not one is better then the other mentallity. Please! This makes me sick. People are such D_cks about everything these days. Lets all sack up, respect each others decisions to CC or OC and shut up and carry on so to speak. GEEESH!

 

[Logan 5]

Ok, reflecting on something that was said earlier on doing a CC without a permit is somehow endangering other gun owners (or something to that effect)...how so?
How is the cop gonna know if the man is carrying concealed? Maybe he isn't. Ok, searching him without his consent or PC. Terry Stops go only so far. Oppps, I guess he forgot he was carrying...? No, maybe he forgot his CC permit...? Or perhaps he remembered that it's unConstitutional to require someone to obtain a license in order to use a Constitutionally protected right?

 

[BLKH2O]

What a crock of SHT! We as CC and OC people are suppose to be supporting each other, and supporting our rights and cause, not bickering and being stuck up or discussing who is the best. We all carry, we all go by the same rules. Its a personal choice, not one is better then the other mentallity. Please! This makes me sick. People are such D_cks about everything these days. Lets all sack up, respect each others decisions to CC or OC and shut up and carry on so to speak. GEEESH!

EXACTLY ! I think some folks just get an adrenaline rush arguing their point, kind of like democrats vs. republicans and look where that got us. I OC/CC depending on the mood I'm in. I also drive a chevy and not a ford. Different strokes for different folks. I don't condone a persons mode of carry. Hmmm ! are there any Neutral forums regading carrying a weapon ?