Open Carry - Favor Please?

[Joe Williams]

snip
This is not rocket science. We have all been taught proper gun handling since we were very small. When did the rules change? You can't tell me it's OK now. There is no social situation where we have been taught to carry a loaded rifle into a building. It's not tolerated at the shooting range, why should they put up with it at Ponderosa.

At most shooting ranges, it's not tolerated to carry a loaded firearm off the line, including handguns.

Are you sure you want to surrender your rights and conduct yourself as you do at the range? If so, feel free. Just don't try to drag the rest of us with you.

Perhaps to YOU it's unacceptable to have loaded weapons in buildings. I'm quite happy with the loaded handguns and shotguns in our house, and I have no interest in allowing gun controllers to tell me that I have to abide by their foolish and nonsensical rules.

 

[E5RANGER375]

yeah if your carry gun or home protection guns arent loaded then why have them?? lol.

a criminal isnt gonna wait for you to load a round before he shoots you. carrying a gun without one in the pipe is rediculous, and borderline suicidal.

 

[lashicoN]

I see both main points of this argument perfectly clear, Hornett, I read all of you posts, I just didn't agree with them.

You guys are saying "Don't bring so much attention to this issue that it will make scared citizens write and/or call congressmen, who will in turn ban OCing of any firearm". That would be a loss of our freedom and I understand where you're coming from.

dburkhead sums it up perfectly for me - "what's the point of having the "freedom" if one acts as if it's already lost?" If we are so scared that they are going to take away our rights, scared to the point of not exercising them, then what is the point in having them in the first place?

We can go around and around, because both sides of this argument make sense, but it just comes down to having the courage to exercise those rights that other people think shouldn't exist in the first place. And also supporting your fellow gun-owners when they are LEGALLY carrying a firearm and get detained by police for 13 minutes for no apparent reason.

Benjamin Franklin's drawing of the snake with the colonies comes to mind when I think of these arguments. "Join or Die", because it is going to be extremely easy for the anti-gun lobby to take away our rights when we are already fighting each other and calling for this specific group or that specific group inside inside of our larger group to surrender certain rights when it comes to carrying firearms.

 

[E5RANGER375]

GREAT POST

 

[r.o.b.o.]

I am pro-guns but threads like this lean me towards seeing the point of view of anti-gun enthusiasts. Has anyone given a logical reason on why someone would need an AR for personal protection? Yea the law says its ok but really is there a realistic reason to do it? I would vote to ban AR and other rifle and shotgun carry besides hunting after hearing the ideology of the gun activists in this thread.

 

[r.o.b.o.]

Its sad that we have to have so many specific laws but they are needed because people can't use common sense and always need to push the envelope to see exactly what they can get away with

 

[Joe Williams]

I am pro-guns but threads like this lean me towards seeing the point of view of anti-gun enthusiasts. Has anyone given a logical reason on why someone would need an AR for personal protection? Yea the law says its ok but really is there a realistic reason to do it? I would vote to ban AR and other rifle and shotgun carry besides hunting after hearing the ideology of the gun activists in this thread.

You proclaim yourself progun, while in the same paragraph you say you will vote to ban guns.

That, frankly, says all that needs to be said.

 

[r.o.b.o.]

I believe certain guns are unnecessary for certain situations

 

[Hornett]

And also supporting your fellow gun-owners when they are LEGALLY carrying a firearm and get detained by police for 13 minutes for no apparent reason.

That was a travesty. I would like to see the officers apologize at the very least. Then some kind of retribution to the gun owners.

The only single one thing I don't really support is the AR-15. It was over the top.

My daily carry .45 is always loaded. 24 hours a day. Seven days a week.
I do consider handguns that are used every single day differently than a long gun that I use when it is needed and put it away. All I am saying is that the only time I get my long guns out is when I am planning to use them. You know it's true. That is typically the case with long guns. That is the perception of the public too. Any of us seeing someone with an AR-15 walking into a building would bring our threat level up to orange.

You guys that disagree with me know that you unload your rifles and shotguns before you drive home from hunting. Because of safety. Don't tell me that you get into arguments with your hunting buddies because it's your right to put a loaded 1100 in his trunk.

I don't keep a long gun at home for SD but just becasue the right deal hasn't come along. I have my eye on those Saiga 12's. If I ever get the funds I will keep it handy for SD and it will be loaded. So, I don't disagree with the comments about home protection.

There is a perception of action with a long gun
It's just one of those things that is.
I am not wanting to make it illegal to carry a long gun or keep it loaded.
I am just asking for common sense.

 

[LEaSH]

I believe certain guns are unnecessary for certain situations

But nobody should be deciding that but each one of us.

 

[ATM]

...Has anyone given a logical reason on why someone would need an AR for personal protection? Yea the law says its ok but really is there a realistic reason to do it?

How about an Ohio resident between the age 18-20. They are restricted from purchasing a handgun even in a private transaction. They may, however, purchase and/or carry a rifle or shotgun.

I would vote to ban AR and other rifle and shotgun carry...

Bummer. You would deny them their only means of armed defense in public.

I think you need to explain why.

 

[IndyMonkey]

I believe certain guns are unnecessary for certain situations

Its a sad day when you cant see the failure in that sentence.


So what you think is ok, should be pushed on the rest of us?

 

[dburkhead]

I am pro-guns but threads like this lean me towards seeing the point of view of anti-gun enthusiasts. Has anyone given a logical reason on why someone would need an AR for personal protection? Yea the law says its ok but really is there a realistic reason to do it? I would vote to ban AR and other rifle and shotgun carry besides hunting after hearing the ideology of the gun activists in this thread.

This is exactly the argument that the antis make about carrying at all.

I ask again, if you use the "need" argument to vote to ban long arms, how do you turn around and refute said "need" argument when raised by someone like Hemke?

Politically it's not been the folk who sit meekly at home and try to "get along" with their opponents that have effected change.

I've used the "gay rights" movement as an example because, frankly, it's a good one. For many years (pretty much the entire history of this country, in fact), the advice given by "gay rights" leaders was to "go along to get along" to stay out of sight to, in effect, stay "in the closet" (although that term for concealing one's homosexuality was coined later--apparently in the 1960's). For literally centuries that approach achieved absolutely nothing. No "improvement" was made in "gay rights". It was perfectly acceptable to discriminate against someone who was known to be gay--in law, in employment, and in private life. Beating up (to the point of downright brutality) of homosexuals for the crime of being homosexual was pretty much ignored.

Then there was a police raid on a place called the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, NY in 1969. Police raided the place--perfectly legally since the place had not liquor license, no running water (leading to a number of "health code" violations), and so on. However, police raiding "gay bars" was fairly common anyway and this was seen as yet another. However this time things did not go well. Patrons refused to provide identification. female-appearing customers (including both females and cross-dressers) refused to go with female officers to the restroom to have their sex confirmed, and so on. Things proceeded to escalate until the arrest turned into a demonstration, which turned into a riot.

By the logic that has been presented by some supposedly pro-gun folk the result should have been the largest pogrom against the gay and lesbian community in history. That, however, wasn't what happened. Instead, the result was more activism among homosexuals, more people coming "out of the closet", and the gradual process of winning recognition for their rights not to be discriminated against. Now, one may argue that this has gone too far today and that instead of seeking "equality" many are seeking special privileges. There is some truth to that. However, one cannot argue that the approach used has not been successful.

Compare that to the gun owner approach of not giving offense, of trying to be "low profile" and void drawing attention. How effective has that been? When I was in junior high, one could walk into a hardware store and buy firearms. Sears and Montgomery Wards sold firearms. It was possible to register and own brand new fully automatic weapons (still had to register them, pay the tax, and so forth--we'd already gone a long way down the road of stealing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms). None of those things are true today.

Can you really, in all honesty, claim that the "cause no offense" approach has been working?

 

[tom1025]

I am pro-guns but threads like this lean me towards seeing the point of view of anti-gun enthusiasts. Has anyone given a logical reason on why someone would need an AR for personal protection? Yea the law says its ok but really is there a realistic reason to do it? I would vote to ban AR and other rifle and shotgun carry besides hunting after hearing the ideology of the gun activists in this thread.

Well hopefully you will never get the chance to VOTE.

How can you be pro gun but in the same breath say you would ban AR, riffle and shotgun carry unless you are hunting?

 

[r.o.b.o.]

Its a sad day when you cant see the failure in that sentence.


So what you think is ok, should be pushed on the rest of us?

Not what I personally think, but there has to be rules pushed on everyone. You think everyone should be able to set their own rules/laws? Some people don't have the sense to decide on their own what is right and wrong. Some sick ppl think that rape and murder are ok.

 

[r.o.b.o.]

Well hopefully you will never get the chance to VOTE.

How can you be pro gun but in the same breath say you would ban AR, riffle and shotgun carry unless you are hunting?

Sorry buddy but everyone gets the chance to vote. Those with majority or the most money win.

I'm not the one deciding if it is right or wrong for everyone. I was merely giving my opinion and vote towards getting closer to what I would consider a perfect world (Which wouldn't include the BG's which create the need to carry)

 

[dburkhead]

Sorry buddy but everyone gets the chance to vote. Those with majority or the most money win.

I'm not the one deciding if it is right or wrong for everyone. I was merely giving my opinion and vote towards getting closer to what I would consider a perfect world (Which wouldn't include the BG's which create the need to carry)

You see, that's part of your problem right there. There is no perfect world and attempting to chase one (as defined by one group or another) has been the cause of more harm in this world than just about anything else.

I, on the other hand, reject the very idea of "perfect world" (partly through recognizing that my idea of a "perfect world" would likely be "the place of tormented souls on Earth" for a great many other people). "Reasonably good" is good enough with recognition that people are going to do things that I don't approve of just like I'm going to do things that they don't approve of and. that's. okay.

It's called "Freedom" and it works a whole lot better than any chase after perfection.

 

[r.o.b.o.]

"Reasonably good" could mean no carrying of semi-automatic rifles in public

 

[lashicoN]

I am pro-guns but threads like this lean me towards seeing the point of view of anti-gun enthusiasts. Has anyone given a logical reason on why someone would need an AR for personal protection? Yea the law says its ok but really is there a realistic reason to do it? I would vote to ban AR and other rifle and shotgun carry besides hunting after hearing the ideology of the gun activists in this thread.

Do you guys see now why we've been arguing what we've been arguing? When you open the door to "why does someone need an AR" you quickly walk into a room where people are saying "We should ban ARs and other non-hunting rifles." R.O.B.O., you aren't pro-gun in any sense of the word. There are many of us here that disagree with your comment to the point of disgusting us, but we still wouldn't vote away your freedom of speech. You deserve it, as an American, just as we deserve the right to keep and bear arms.

As for your logical reason, I'm not going to sugar-coat it. I have a rifle for the protection of myself, my family, and my friends. I hope I don't ever have to use it, but if I do have to ever kill someone, I want my retractable stock, fore grip, and 30 round magazine. It doesn't get much more logical than that. Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your house or a tire iron in your car? Same basic principle, I don't want to get a flat tire or have my house burn down, but in case they do happen I can possibly put the fire out or fix the flat, without calling the fire department or police for roadside assistance. And by doing these things, I save you tax dollars. I accept your thanks, R.O.B.O.

 

[IndyMonkey]

"Reasonably good" could mean no carrying of semi-automatic rifles in public

Or it could mean no guns at all.