You guys will have fun rippng this article to shreds...

[davidmcbeth]

I lost my older sister at 28 years old due to the life style that we had led as children and young adults. Living outside of “the three stupid rule” as we did, for over thirteen years, cost her her life. She made decisions at thirteen years old that were not survivable. I spent thirteen years of my life protecting her

Sounds like he failed he sister ... now he wants to lecture the rest of the world ...

All I need to do is go home
Then Go Home and shut up!

I carry for one reason and one reason only.
And I don't care what anyone's reason for carrying is...its a right and I'm not nosey

Do not go stupid places, with stupid people, and do stupid things
I guess another is: I do not use English correctly too !

I think it is time for us all to agree, without having to call for links to prove it, the mere presence of a gun may stop a crime from ever being committed.
I don't see a connection between the need to lower crime to the right to carry; any correlation is irrelevant; but if the guy wants to state facts then you, I would seek proof if you wanted to make a point of it.

 

[wimwag]

Anybody else notice the coincidence of the number of times he says operator and the look on his face in the pictures getting more serious as you scroll through the article? At the end, I love how he decks himself out in DCU trousers and his glasses suddenly become highly reflective. I bet they're there to cover the bruises from the slide hitting him in the face. And to blind shoplifters at WalMart.

 

[ATM]

It is a repost, but given that it is like two years old and how OC seems to be growing im not surprised. I also dont expect people to remember it from tbe past (assuming tbey were even on the board then). But yea the author REALLY didnt like being questioned and proven wrong.

Ha! I remember that exchange: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?95583-Roger-Phillips-(and-Gabe-Suarez)-discuss-OC

The fact that he didn't like being questioned paled in comparison to his inability to answer your calm and reasoned logical approach to refuting his unsupporte premises, resorting rather to constant and evasive fallacies (not the least of which were the overbearing appeals to his own authority and evasive ad hominem rants and dismissive labeling attempts).

The funniest part was all his forum fans cheering and agreeing with him even as he failed so obviously to defend or advance his argument at all. I don't think that crowd is accustomed to requiring reasons, facts or data to modify their belief systems. :lol:


Good times.

 

[Baked on Grease]

Ha! I remember that exchange: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?95583-Roger-Phillips-(and-Gabe-Suarez)-discuss-OC

The fact that he didn't like being questioned paled in comparison to his inability to answer your calm and reasoned logical approach to refuting his unsupporte premises, resorting rather to constant and evasive fallacies (not the least of which were the overbearing appeals to his own authority and evasive ad hominem rants and dismissive labeling attempts).

The funniest part was all his forum fans cheering and agreeing with him even as he failed so obviously to defend or advance his argument at all. I don't think that crowd is accustomed to requiring reasons, facts or data to modify their belief systems. :lol:


Good times.

That's part of the reason I enjoy this forum so much more than others, the Cite to Authority rule puts all arguments on equal footing to back up their claim... otherwise it remains just a claim.

Edit: I had to stop reading his responses when he started on the "I am extremely pro freedom [... ] but we have to BALANCE OUR RIGHTS..." emphasis mine of course.

Sounds like he would negotiate an compromise his Rights away... and that is anything but pro freedom.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Tagcon]

Newbie here, wondering why OCers are fighting with the CCers shouldn't we all be fighting with the people who don't want us to carry at all?

 

[Bernymac]

Newbie here, wondering why OCers are fighting with the CCers shouldn't we all be fighting with the people who don't want us to carry at all?

Yes, but they (those who don't want us to carry at all) do not come here...except for the drive by troll and the stinky sock muppet.

 

[Tagcon]

One, two, three, four. What're we fightin' for? The Second Amendment RKABA says "shall not be infringed" while CC is a privilege generally bought and sold as a perquisite privilege of permitees. We have only the rights that we defend. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when the opponent is as intransigent as the gun control tyrants.

Ok, I may be in the wrong place...................I hate stinky sock muppets


Terry

 

[Baked on Grease]

Newbie here, wondering why OCers are fighting with the CCers shouldn't we all be fighting with the people who don't want us to carry at all?

If you stay around long enough you'll find that WE (OCers) aren't fighting with anyone. Pretty generally we hold that we don't care how you care, just carry. If you want to conceal, then conceal and we won't hold it against you. We don't go out of our way to write long winded articles about how superior OC is to CC and that is why no one should CC. Many of us hold that position in our minds, but we don't put down CCers for CCing... so long as they respect our method of carry we respect theirs.

Compare this article to ones that say "This is why I open carry."... the gist of such an article is exactly as I said above. The writer will CC and OC as required by their situation but prefers OC when given a choice and holds no grudge against those that prefer CC over OC.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Aknazer]

Newbie here, wondering why OCers are fighting with the CCers shouldn't we all be fighting with the people who don't want us to carry at all?

We aren't fighting with CCers, they like to fight with us. For example, go to the previous thread about this and see some of the comments from the author. He made claims, I asked him for cites in order to better understand his opinion on the subject, and he basically attacked me for daring to question him and pointing out why I disagreed with his statements. When he couldn't back anything up he tried to attack my character and call me a "political activist only" which was a level two on some scale he created; even though I showed multiple times that I was either a 3 or a 4 depending on how much weight one gives to light military training (the AF doesn't give most of its troops much weapons training). Simply put, he (the CCer) was fighting with me (the OCer) and not the other way around.

As for why they fight with us, it is for a bunch of reasons. Some are scared of an openly displayed weapon. Others think it provides them with some sort of tactical advantage (that they are going to ambush the ambusher that ambushed them). And then there's those that feel that OCing threatens their livelyhood (since in most places training isn't mandatory to OC). I'm sure there's other reasons as well, but the short of it is that a lot of them feel superior for some reason and are trying to force their views onto others, compared to most OCers who simply try to put the facts out there and let people make the choice for theirself.

 

[MKEgal]

He routinely sees OCers (when he sees one) not being noticed at all by adults. Usually a little kid points cuz they, for what ever reason, see the pistol first.

Many kids are also closer to eye level with the pistol worn on someone's belt.

And I see we have another persona for the many-times-banned troll.
Wish his shrink would help with the MPD.

 

[wimwag]

Newbie here, wondering why OCers are fighting with the CCers shouldn't we all be fighting with the people who don't want us to carry at all?

We don't fight with the antis either.

 

[JoeSparky]

We don't fight with the antis either.

I have NO problem with an 'anti' choosing not to arm themselves or make an effort to defend themselves PROVIDED they don't make an effort to take my arms and interfere with MY right/responsibility to defend myself and family or get offended if/when I choose not to step in and defend their lives that they don't value.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I have NO problem with an 'anti' choosing not to arm themselves or make an effort to defend themselves PROVIDED they don't make an effort to take my arms and interfere with MY right/responsibility to defend myself and family or get offended if/when I choose not to step in and defend their lives that they don't value.

Unfortunately, most people who choose not to own guns also support the position that others should not too.

And even those that do own guns, some don't mind and support gun control laws.

I have met very few folks that meet the level I consider to be truly "pro-RKBA".

 

[wimwag]

I have NO problem with an 'anti' choosing not to arm themselves or make an effort to defend themselves PROVIDED they don't make an effort to take my arms and interfere with MY right/responsibility to defend myself and family or get offended if/when I choose not to step in and defend their lives that they don't value.

When I get accosted by an anti, I mentally draw an X through them. If I help them they might sue me.

 

[JoeSparky]

Unfortunately, most people who choose not to own guns also support the position that others should not too.

And even those that do own guns, some don't mind and support gun control laws.

I have met very few folks that meet the level I consider to be truly "pro-RKBA".

I used to be one of those FULLY supportive of the pro_RKBA folks who did not actually own a firearm and then I realized the ANTI's were using my choice to not own as justification to revoke my right to keep and bear arms.

Presently, I fully support the RIGHT of ALL persons not currently in jail/prison/mental hospitals or court ordered "supervision" to own, acquire, keep, possess, carrry, bear, holster, transport, or USE a firearm to protect themselves, their family members, and others in their presence from any and all UNLAWFUL force. ( I recognize this level of freedom is not CURRENTLY in force in all parts of our nation, and I don't advocate violations of law.)

 

[davidmcbeth]

I used to be one of those FULLY supportive of the pro_RKBA folks who did not actually own a firearm and then I realized the ANTI's were using my choice to not own as justification to revoke my right to keep and bear arms.

Presently, I fully support the RIGHT of ALL persons not currently in jail/prison/mental hospitals or court ordered "supervision" to own, acquire, keep, possess, carrry, bear, holster, transport, or USE a firearm to protect themselves, their family members, and others in their presence from any and all UNLAWFUL force. ( I recognize this level of freedom is not CURRENTLY in force in all parts of our nation, and I don't advocate violations of law.)

You and I are a sad minority ... but on the correct side of the RKBA equation.

 

[since9]

Cites to Authority? He don't need no stinking links. Don't confuse him with facts! >.<

Oh, no - can't bear the thought of having to deal with the facts!

To use one of the article's phrases, "I think it is time for us all to agree..."

...that claims made while decrying the use of substantiating resources are generally unreliable at best, and flat out lies at worst.

For example, the article's claim that a known presence of a firearm on one's person entices a crime in public has never been substantiated in crime databases. Its deterrent factor, however, has been substantiated. In keeping with the spirit of the article, I won't cite resources. However, I won't decry their use, so don't take my word for it -- search for answers!

(wry grin)