Open Carry
-
This is sort of analogous to gay rights parades where dudes are mostly naked and covered in glitter. I would guess, for the average gay person that just wants to be treated like everyone else, this excessive display is turning the rest of america off your side (possibly). Here, instead of being naked and covered in glitter, these guys carry around big, scary ass looking guns just to bring attention to themselves. It is most likely turning a lot of people off of the pro gun side by seeing idiots take actions like this.
It isn't the exact same situation, but I see some similarities.
-
It's not for me personally, but I am not opposed to it and can see where it's necessary (for pistols/handguns). IWB carry of a Glock 21/17/22 is not comfortable, but I don't personally like having a target painted on me, so when I carry, I choose a more concealable firearm, and make sure I'm the only one that knows it's there.
OC of rifles is silly. I agree with Logic on that, but recent events in the news about OC in texas (Chipotle, starbucks, or wherever) I support their premise / cause. Here's why:
Woody (or Chris maybe), this goes back to our discussion of Politicians/Lawmakers being clueless hacks. Keep that in mind. In Texas, it is illegal to carry a pistol openly, even if it's holstered Level 3 (3 pts of retention). All pistols must be concealed. Printing (having the outline of a gun show through your clothing) could be considered "not concealed" depending on the prosecutor. Which, again, is silly. It is, however, legal to carry a rifle openly. Which is why that's what you're currently seeing. the OC movement in TX is looking to bring attention to the absurdity of the current laws, by saying, "it's within the law (and our rights) to carry this openly, but not a handgun?"
You can find videos on YOUTUBE of punk-ass dummies carrying rifles openly in states that do permit OC of handguns just to badger police officers and upload to YT. They are the worst of the worst, imo.
Edit:
When I take my family hiking/ camping there are some natl & state forests that do not permit OC. This would be a time where I preferred it due to comfort. I'm more concerned with bears/ bobcats than other hikers/campers with ill intent (like a 95/5 % relationship here). Being "the dad" I get to carry the family's snacks drinks jackets etc. and OC would make my hike a bit more comfortable.
It's not for me personally, but I am not opposed to it and can see where it's necessary (for pistols/handguns). IWB carry of a Glock 21/17/22 is not comfortable, but I don't personally like having a target painted on me, so when I carry, I choose a more concealable firearm, and make sure I'm the only one that knows it's there.
OC of rifles is silly. I agree with Logic on that, but recent events in the news about OC in texas (Chipotle, starbucks, or wherever) I support their premise / cause. Here's why:
Woody (or Chris maybe), this goes back to our discussion of Politicians/Lawmakers being clueless hacks. Keep that in mind. In Texas, it is illegal to carry a pistol openly, even if it's holstered Level 3 (3 pts of retention). All pistols must be concealed. Printing (having the outline of a gun show through your clothing) could be considered "not concealed" depending on the prosecutor. Which, again, is silly. It is, however, legal to carry a rifle openly. Which is why that's what you're currently seeing. the OC movement in TX is looking to bring attention to the absurdity of the current laws, by saying, "it's within the law (and our rights) to carry this openly, but not a handgun?"
You can find videos on YOUTUBE of punk-ass dummies carrying rifles openly in states that do permit OC of handguns just to badger police officers and upload to YT. They are the worst of the worst, imo.
Edit:
When I take my family hiking/ camping there are some natl & state forests that do not permit OC. This would be a time where I preferred it due to comfort. I'm more concerned with bears/ bobcats than other hikers/campers with ill intent (like a 95/5 % relationship here). Being "the dad" I get to carry the family's snacks drinks jackets etc. and OC would make my hike a bit more comfortable.
I think, in this case, it speaks more to how messed up or legislative process can be as opposed to politicians not knowing what they're talking about
-
I saw Jon Steward bring up an interesting point. Combined this with Stand Your Ground. There are a bunch of dudes (or one dude) walking around with big ass guns. You don't know if they're good guys or bad guys. You don't know their intentions. They're walking in to your business, who knows what they're up to. With Stand Your Ground, you are within your right to shoot them then and there because you feel reasonably threatened. You have no duty to see what they are up to first.
I'd laugh if this situation plays out. If one of these douchebags shoots another douchebag because they felt "threatened".
-
I doubt that would stand up Woody.
I would imagine any shit bag first year law student could point out that the person with the weapons would probably need to do something threatening before you can shoot him.
I realize how hip it is too freaking out over stand your ground but you really do need to be threatened before you can respond.
WSS
-
I doubt that would stand up Woody.
I would imagine any shit bag first year law student could point out that the person with the weapons would probably need to do something threatening before you can shoot him.
I realize how hip it is too freaking out over stand your ground but you really do need to be threatened before you can respond.
WSS
I doubt that would stand up Woody.
I would imagine any shit bag first year law student could point out that the person with the weapons would probably need to do something threatening before you can shoot him.
I realize how hip it is too freaking out over stand your ground but you really do need to be threatened before you can respond.
WSS
I do believe you are correct. You can't shoot someone just because they are carrying a gun. Carrying a gun, in its self, is NOT considered a threat. Now if you are carrying it in your hands and pointing it a people, that's another story. But if the gun is on your hip or across your back, it is NOT a threat.
-
You did a good job in the previous post, woody, except you drug that subject into a
different subject ...again.
But simply walking around with a hammer doesn't mean somebody is going to use it on you.
Emminent danger of lethal or serious physical injury.
That Stand Your Ground scenerio isn't one. No eminence. The store owner had better
have a security video camera in use....
-
There is a clear legal distinction between "carrying" a firearm, and "brandishing" a firearm.
As a CHP carrier, you're expected and permitted to respond accordingly. (Responding to the latter is permissible and considered self defense, responding to the former is against the law).
-
You did a good job in the previous post, woody, except you drug that subject into a
different subject ...again.
But simply walking around with a hammer doesn't mean somebody is going to use it on you.
Emminent danger of lethal or serious physical injury.
That Stand Your Ground scenerio isn't one. No eminence. The store owner had better
have a security video camera in use....
You did a good job in the previous post, woody, except you drug that subject into a
different subject ...again.
But simply walking around with a hammer doesn't mean somebody is going to use it on you.
Emminent danger of lethal or serious physical injury.
That Stand Your Ground scenerio isn't one. No eminence. The store owner had better
have a security video camera in use....
It was an analogy. Keep up.
Hammers generally have other uses. Like, idk, hammering a nail. A gun pretty much just does one thing.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
You did a good job in the previous post, woody, except you drug that subject into a
different subject ...again.
But simply walking around with a hammer doesn't mean somebody is going to use it on you.
Emminent danger of lethal or serious physical injury.
That Stand Your Ground scenerio isn't one. No eminence. The store owner had better
have a security video camera in use....
It was an analogy. Keep up.
Hammers generally have other uses. Like, idk, hammering a nail. A gun pretty much just does one thing.
It was an analogy. Keep up.
Hammers generally have other uses. Like, idk, hammering a nail. A gun pretty much just does one thing.
When do you start working? Summer vacation is over. Time for the adulthood to kick in.
-
ROF,LMAO !!!!
One more reason why I don't drink at the computer anymore. New computer, new keyboard......
-
If you're working the counter at a gas station, its late at night, and a dude comes walking in with a gun around his shoulder. You feel threatened and shoot in self defense. Did you break the law?
-
You did a good job in the previous post, woody, except you drug that subject into a
different subject ...again.
But simply walking around with a hammer doesn't mean somebody is going to use it on you.
Emminent danger of lethal or serious physical injury.
That Stand Your Ground scenerio isn't one. No eminence. The store owner had better
have a security video camera in use....
It was an analogy. Keep up.
Hammers generally have other uses. Like, idk, hammering a nail. A gun pretty much just does one thing.
A gun could be used for protection or for hunting or for target practice or as a collectible item or, of course, to rob a store or shoot someone.It was an analogy. Keep up.
Hammers generally have other uses. Like, idk, hammering a nail. A gun pretty much just does one thing.
Let's say that you are in a physical altercation with another student or coworker. Would you prefer he had a hammer or not?
WSS
-
All of those things you mentioned have one thing in common: Harming something else.
(You can collect anything. If you just want to collect guns, have at it).
-
All of those things you mentioned have one thing in common: Harming something else.
(You can collect anything. If you just want to collect guns, have at it).
You made a stupid comparison and now you want to tap dance? Ok woody. In your world if a guy walks in with a hammer you should shoot him because he probably wants to beat you over the head with it and rob his store.All of those things you mentioned have one thing in common: Harming something else.
(You can collect anything. If you just want to collect guns, have at it).
Cripes
WSS
-
Yes. There was NO real threat of immediate danger. Now, if the person started to use it
in a threatening manner, toward the clerk, then the clerk has a right to pull his gun
and warn that he'd better put that gun back down and get out.
It's all about timing and circumstance. If he's going to shoot the place up, is rambling
incoherently, and says he's going to kill everybody...
Then, unfortunately, my gun would be drawn and ready as soon as he turned toward me and
didn't drop his gun.
Actually, any time you have your gun serviced, you carry it into the gun shop, get a sticker on it.
They always ask if it's unloaded, which is really sad that some idiots didn't already make sure.
A clerk told me a few stories one day.
Some guy came in, with a ddl barrel shotgun, said it was time to trade it in on a new rifle for his son
for Christmas. Well, the front desk asked if his gun was unloaded, and he looked at them, opened
the breech, and two old shells popped out.
Another time, an older lady came in, got a sticker at the front desk after saying of course it wasn't loaded,
and at the back, in the conversation with the clerk, she got annoyed and said "what am I supposed to do
with this thing? My husband died two years ago, and I don't like guns !".....
while waving it around as she spoke, talking "with her hands", sometimes towards the clerks as it went around,
they ducked.... And the gun went off. She dropped it,
fainted, and I don't know the rest of the story.
But in neither case, was there any intent to cause any harm at all. But, I wonder what an off duty, or on duty
police officer would have done to the old lady. Grabbed her arm at close range, I guess.
I think the latter would be "unintentionally brandishing", which is against the law...?
-
Too late then. He's already got the drop on you. Shoot him in the face first ask questions later. That's what Zimmerman would do.
-
Too late then. He's already got the drop on you. Shoot him in the face first ask questions later. That's what Zimmerman would do.
Too late then. He's already got the drop on you. Shoot him in the face first ask questions later. That's what Zimmerman would do.
Zimmerman would leave the store then come back and shoot the open carrier.
-
Meanwhile... a journalist looked into the anti gun org stats on mass shootings in schools:
and:
-
The thing that still amazes me, from those on the pro gun side, is that they seem to not understand (or choose not to) the fundamental difference between a gun and a car, knife, hammer, pressure cooker, etc. Sure, it sounds good in your head for argument's sake... but I'm not sure how it is proving any point. A gun's primary purpose is to harm something else. All of those items listed have a primary purpose that doesn't involve harming others.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
The thing that still amazes me, from those on the pro gun side, is that they seem to not understand (or choose not to) the fundamental difference between a gun and a car, knife, hammer, pressure cooker, etc. Sure, it sounds good in your head for argument's sake... but I'm not sure how it is proving any point. A gun's primary purpose is to harm something else. All of those items listed have a primary purpose that doesn't involve harming others.
The thing that still amazes me, from those on the pro gun side, is that they seem to not understand (or choose not to) the fundamental difference between a gun and a car, knife, hammer, pressure cooker, etc. Sure, it sounds good in your head for argument's sake... but I'm not sure how it is proving any point. A gun's primary purpose is to harm something else. All of those items listed have a primary purpose that doesn't involve harming others.
So if you actually believe what you are saying how could you not demand a total ban?
Why would society ever consider allowing a device with no other purpose than to hurt and kill people
Seriously.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login