Why carry open in town?

Geez....does this subject get OLD. I've replied so often to basically the same statements/comments on other forums, I've lost count!

I've gotten to know many who OC regularly as I do over the years with legitimate reasons why they carry that way and it has nothing to do with a "look at me" attitude.
 
Geez....does this subject get OLD. I've replied so often to basically the same statements/comments on other forums, I've lost count!

I've gotten to know many who OC regularly as I do over the years with legitimate reasons why they carry that way and it has nothing to do with a "look at me" attitude.

There is almost always an active thread on this forum where the same insults and accusations can be found from CC-only carriers towards OC'ers. I have never seen a full-time OC'er insult anyone for CC'ing though. I have seen insults towards CC'ers ensue from them insulting us (OC'ers), but not simply for preferring CC.

I replied to a post on another gun forum today in which the OP posted the following video, and the overwhelming majority of people went all Moms Demand Action on the guy OC'ing a rifle and not submitting to the infringements on his rights. At the end, he is literally prevented from following orders to vacate the area as he was trying to comply and get to his car to split. He was arrested and charged and convicted on what the OP, who lives close-by to where it happened, was a phony charge of "displaying a weapon." This was in Vancouver, WA, so maybe Navy or Firefighterchen or another Washingtonian knows something about it. Anyway, here's the vid, with my reply after several anti-OC posts following it:




BluesStringer said:
How easily people give up liberty, that they would turn on those challenging tyrants and thugs who steal it from us daily with impunity.

The opposition to the rifle-bearing (does that word ring a bell?) young man displayed with angst, mocking and vitriol is certainly not unique to this gun forum. It is a ubiquitous schism amongst "factions" of so-called gun rights "advocates" that plays itself out on gun forums every day of every week of every year for the last 20+ years of my being online. Perhaps a reminder from "Candidus" from 1771 as our Great Revolution was bubbling up from the hearts of Patriots of Liberty will inspire introspection to find our better "advocacy," but I can't say I'm particularly confident that it will. Still a good read though, if one can stand a mirror being held up to their face:

The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv'd them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas'd them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath'd to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. — Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that "if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom." It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.
Essay, written under the pseudonym "Candidus," in The Boston Gazette (14 October 1771), later published in The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (1865) by William Vincent Wells, p. 425​

Samuel Adams is known best for another salient quotation, which also applies:

Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say "what should be the reward of such sacrifices?" Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Some on this forum apparently believe that both Samuel Adams' words, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights he advocated for with every fiber of his being, are obsolete, irrelevant in modern society. The truth is, we are regressing. As a country, we more-closely resemble the majority of pre-Revolution British Loyalists of Colonial days that Adams was speaking to when he urged they go home in peace with their chains resting lightly upon them. The majority of replies in this thread stands as my evidence substantiating that claim.

Blues
 
-snip-I have never seen a full-time OC'er insult anyone for CC'ing though.-snip-
How about any of the myriad of posts I, a full time OC'er, have made mentioning CC'ers who have the "don't look at me" attitude as they ............ sneak..... their gun into/onto private property that has banned those who carry guns.

Will mentioning the .... sneakiness... of CC'ers who engage in ... sneaking... their guns in qualify as an insult? Or is it merely the truth?
 
How about any of the myriad of posts I, a full time OC'er, have made mentioning CC'ers who have the "don't look at me" attitude as they ............ sneak..... their gun into/onto private property that has banned those who carry guns.

Will mentioning the .... sneakiness... of CC'ers who engage in ... sneaking... their guns in qualify as an insult? Or is it merely the truth?

Umm.....Since you're quoting your own insult/truth, I leave it to you to answer the question, but regardless, it isn't the CC'ing that earns them (him) the insult/truth, it's the sneaking onto property where he knows he commits a trespass in so doing. I've always taken it as an indisputable truth, but if you want to clarify it as an insult, it's yours to do with what you will. LOL

Blues
 
Might want to re-check the "Open Carry Texas" thread. They even insult fellow OC'ers

It's your accusation, so either link or quote whatever you're talking about, or whatever you're saying that ostensibly contradicts what I said is meaningless. I stand by what I said. I have never seen any OC'er insult a CC'er for CC'ing.

Firefighterchen, if you see this, clear your PM Inbox. It's full.

Blues
 
It's your accusation, so either link or quote whatever you're talking about, or whatever you're saying that ostensibly contradicts what I said is meaningless. I stand by what I said. I have never seen any OC'er insult a CC'er for CC'ing.

Firefighterchen, if you see this, clear your PM Inbox. It's full.

Blues
No specific ones needed, but they are mainly when CCres talk about tactical advantage...
My point is that in the OCT threads, both OC and CC were berating people for legally carrying.
 
No specific ones needed

Yes, they are needed if you're trying to establish that it was a contradiction to what I said. If you're not trying to establish that, then why did you reply to what I said with what you said?

Just make sure it applies to all that I said. To wit:

I have seen insults towards CC'ers ensue from them insulting us (OC'ers), but not simply for preferring CC
 
Firefighterchen, if you see this, clear your PM Inbox. It's full.

Blues

Cleaned up.

No specific ones needed, but they are mainly when CCres talk about tactical advantage...
My point is that in the OCT threads, both OC and CC were berating people for legally carrying.

I thought legally carrying is a prerequisite to being berated...If not the only reason.


Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
How about any of the myriad of posts I, a full time OC'er, have made mentioning CC'ers who have the "don't look at me" attitude as they ............ sneak..... their gun into/onto private property that has banned those who carry guns.

Will mentioning the .... sneakiness... of CC'ers who engage in ... sneaking... their guns in qualify as an insult? Or is it merely the truth?
Umm.....Since you're quoting your own insult/truth, I leave it to you to answer the question, but regardless, it isn't the CC'ing that earns them (him) the insult/truth, it's the sneaking onto property where he knows he commits a trespass in so doing. I've always taken it as an indisputable truth, but if you want to clarify it as an insult, it's yours to do with what you will. LOL

Blues
Well I guess I'll call the ... sneakiness... of those who infringe upon the property owner's right to ban those who carry guns by ... sneaking... in a gun a truth since... sneaking... in a gun is a.... sneaky... act performed by someone who is being... sneaky. And if those folks who really believed their right to bear arms trumps the property owner's right to ban those who bear arms were honest and forthright there would not be any reason for them to... sneak... their gun in and they would either support their belief by carrying openly and defying the property owners rules, or they would not shop there, or they would leave their gun in the car/at home, but they would not... sneak... their gun in.

But your point is well taken that it isn't the concealed carry that earns them the truth, it is the .... sneaky act of sneaking... in a concealed gun so I've still not insulted concealed carry itself...

And I've not even insulted those who ... sneak... their guns in because it is not an insult but is still a truth that those who ... sneak... their guns in where the property owner has banned those who carry guns are still ... sneakily.. being... sneaky.
 
Well I guess I'll call the ... sneakiness... of those who infringe upon the property owner's right to ban those who carry guns by ... sneaking... in a gun a truth since... sneaking... in a gun is a.... sneaky... act performed by someone who is being... sneaky. And if those folks who really believed their right to bear arms trumps the property owner's right to ban those who bear arms were honest and forthright there would not be any reason for them to... sneak... their gun in and they would either support their belief by carrying openly and defying the property owners rules, or they would not shop there, or they would leave their gun in the car/at home, but they would not... sneak... their gun in.

But your point is well taken that it isn't the concealed carry that earns them the truth, it is the .... sneaky act of sneaking... in a concealed gun so I've still not insulted concealed carry itself...

And I've not even insulted those who ... sneak... their guns in because it is not an insult but is still a truth that those who ... sneak... their guns in where the property owner has banned those who carry guns are still ... sneakily.. being... sneaky.
All of this "sneak" crap is in your own imagination and projecting..... WHEN I take my firearm concealed onto a business property that has invited the general public there, I do so CONCEALED in order NOT to SHOVE their idiocy down their own throats.... I am the one being polite and not infringing on anyones rights.....

BTW... you have STILL FAILED UTTERLY to come up with even a tiny little shred of proof (other than your and others OPINIONS, and some non-applicable examples that fail miserably to apply/have anything to do with it also) that you are now resorting to the only thing you have left, which is ridicule of that which you cannot prove wrong with FACTS....
 
Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Well I guess I'll call the ... sneakiness... of those who infringe upon the property owner's right to ban those who carry guns by ... sneaking... in a gun a truth since... sneaking... in a gun is a.... sneaky... act performed by someone who is being... sneaky. And if those folks who really believed their right to bear arms trumps the property owner's right to ban those who bear arms were honest and forthright there would not be any reason for them to... sneak... their gun in and they would either support their belief by carrying openly and defying the property owners rules, or they would not shop there, or they would leave their gun in the car/at home, but they would not... sneak... their gun in.

But your point is well taken that it isn't the concealed carry that earns them the truth, it is the .... sneaky act of sneaking... in a concealed gun so I've still not insulted concealed carry itself...

And I've not even insulted those who ... sneak... their guns in because it is not an insult but is still a truth that those who ... sneak... their guns in where the property owner has banned those who carry guns are still ... sneakily.. being... sneaky.
All of this "sneak" crap is in your own imagination and projecting..... WHEN I take my firearm concealed onto a business property that has invited the general public there, I do so CONCEALED in order NOT to SHOVE their idiocy down their own throats.... I am the one being polite and not infringing on anyones rights.....

BTW... you have STILL FAILED UTTERLY to come up with even a tiny little shred of proof (other than your and others OPINIONS, and some non-applicable examples that fail miserably to apply/have anything to do with it also) that you are now resorting to the only thing you have left, which is ridicule of that which you cannot prove wrong with FACTS....
What took you so long to respond to that? :sarcastic:

In reference to the part of your post I put in bold... that is the weakest excuse, yes I said excuse because it surely isn't a rational reason, I've ever seen to justify .... sneaking... a gun onto a business property that has invited only those individual members of the public that agree to abide by the property owner's no guns rule. A rule the property owner uses as a means of exerting his right to control who has, and who doesn't have, his permission to enter his property.
 
All of this "sneak" crap is in your own imagination and projecting..... WHEN I take my firearm concealed onto a business property that has invited the general public there, I do so CONCEALED in order NOT to SHOVE their idiocy down their own throats...
And you are the almighty all powerful decider of what is "idiocy" or not. Read your own words and tell me about "projecting" and "imagination".
-
You need to get past one tiny little point that you seem not to grasp - 99% of the people on this forum agree that gun-free zones are death traps waiting to happen. The ones among us that truly believe in the Constitution understand that just because you disagree with someone's "opinion" neither party is wrong, because we live in a country where the minority does not lose its rights to the majority.
 
All of this "sneak" crap is in your own imagination and projecting..... WHEN I take my firearm concealed onto a business property that has invited the general public there, I do so CONCEALED in order NOT to SHOVE their idiocy down their own throats.... I am the one being polite and not infringing on anyones rights.....
And the fact that you don't do it openly is just a mere coincidence. The fact that it's illegal must be too.
.
BTW... you have STILL FAILED UTTERLY to come up with even a tiny little shred of proof (other than your and others OPINIONS, and some non-applicable examples that fail miserably to apply/have anything to do with it also) that you are now resorting to the only thing you have left, which is ridicule of that which you cannot prove wrong with FACTS....
"(a) Except as provided in division (C)(3)(b) of this section, the owner or person in control of private land or premises, and a private person or entity leasing land or premises owned by the state, the United States, or a political subdivision of the state or the United States, may post a sign in a conspicuous location on that land or on those premises prohibiting persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms on or onto that land or those premises. Except as otherwise provided in this division, a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree."
.
That's from 2923.126 of the Ohio Revised Code, which is where you're from. Of course, we all know none of this applies to you because you're only being polite, like you said. You aren't letting pesky little details like the law or some court's opinion get in your way or anything like that.
 
And the fact that you don't do it openly is just a mere coincidence. The fact that it's illegal must be too.
.
"(a) Except as provided in division (C)(3)(b) of this section, the owner or person in control of private land or premises, and a private person or entity leasing land or premises owned by the state, the United States, or a political subdivision of the state or the United States, may post a sign in a conspicuous location on that land or on those premises prohibiting persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms on or onto that land or those premises. Except as otherwise provided in this division, a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree."
.
That's from 2923.126 of the Ohio Revised Code, which is where you're from. Of course, we all know none of this applies to you because you're only being polite, like you said. You aren't letting pesky little details like the law or some court's opinion get in your way or anything like that.


What we are discussing is our RIGHTS vs someones RULES..... The "law" you quoted above is about trespassing, the ONLY thing I would be guilty of if I actually did see a sign (which I never do) is trespassing, NOT of infringing on THEIR RIGHTS, which is what MY ARGUMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT... SO, nice try charley, but your example STILL DOES NOT APPLY.....
 
What we are discussing is our RIGHTS vs someones RULES..... The "law" you quoted above is about trespassing, the ONLY thing I would be guilty of if I actually did see a sign (which I never do) is trespassing, NOT of infringing on THEIR RIGHTS, which is what MY ARGUMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT... SO, nice try charley, but your example STILL DOES NOT APPLY.....
It is the property owner's right to deny permission to enter for individual members of the public who carry guns. And many property owners inform individual members of the public by posting a rule expressing the fact that those who carry guns do not have his permission to enter. Intentionally ignoring that rule is infringing upon the property owner's right to control his property by denying permission for people who carry guns to enter his property. In effect you are making the new rule that the property owner cannot deny you, you personally as an individual member of the public, permission for carrying a gun. In short...YOU are saying that YOU control that property... not the owner. And that IS an infringement.

And if you had any actual right to make rules contrary to the property owner's rules then there wouldn't be any need to.... sneak... the gun in now would there?

If you, as an individual member of the public, are not allowed entry then neither is anything and everything about you (including your rights, ALL of your rights and what you are... sneaking ... in hidden in your pockets) allowed entry.

Remember... you have absolutely no right to be on/in property owned by someone else unless they give you permission and the property owner's rules are conditions attached to receiving that permission. Failure to abide by the rules equals failure to receive the owner's permission. Failure to receive permission equals trespass and the owner uses the trespass laws instituted to support his right to deny entry to punish those who disobey his rules. It really is that simple.

If carrying a gun doesn't infringe upon the property owner's right to deny entry to members of the public who carry guns... why do you feel it necessary to ... sneak... your gun in? Why not just open carry in defiance of the property owner's right to control his property through the use of rules instead of .... sneaking.... the gun in?

And this:
originally posted by Axenda45:
-snip-
WHEN I take my firearm concealed onto a business property that has invited the general public there, I do so CONCEALED in order NOT to SHOVE their idiocy down their own throats....
-snip-
is, at least in my opinion, a pathetic attempt to aggrandize yourself for engaging in the act of infringing upon the rights of the property owner by.... sneaking.... in your gun against the owner's express wishes. As if ... sneaking... to avoid getting caught is somehow justified, even somehow noble, because you think it is saving the feelings of the property owner.
:bad:

Now a general comment....
Constantly countering the idea that "open to the public" means anyone and everyone has the owner's permission to enter despite the owner's rules regarding who does NOT have permission sometimes seems like an exercise in futility yet.... if left uncontested people who say they support rights (like the right to bear arms) will soon begin to believe that the only rights that matter are their personal favorite rights and all the rest don't matter. And that is the same perspective of those who think the right to bear arms doesn't matter.

A personal comment....
I am always dismayed to see so many gun owners who say they support rights say that "Concealed means concealed so how would anyone know?" as an excuse to justify infringing upon the rights of the property owner by... sneaking... their gun in. What they are really saying is "Hooray for my favorite right and to hell with yours."
 
Sorry, but your ENTIRE post is based on the FALSE IDEA you seem to not be able to get out of your head that somehow someones RULES equate to/are the same thing as their RIGHTS.......

SO, your ENTIRE argument is wrong......
 
Sorry, but your ENTIRE post is based on the FALSE IDEA you seem to not be able to get out of your head that somehow someones RULES equate to/are the same thing as their RIGHTS.......

SO, your ENTIRE argument is wrong......

Quite simply, so there are no big words, the property owner has the RIGHT to make RULES for those entering his property. So do you with regards to your property. How hard is that to understand?
-
You don't agree with it because it is an inconvenience to you - so you come up with progressive liberal justifications as to why you're right.
 
Quite simply, so there are no big words, the property owner has the RIGHT to make RULES for those entering his property. So do you with regards to your property. How hard is that to understand?
-
You don't agree with it because it is an inconvenience to you - so you come up with progressive liberal justifications as to why you're right.

How hard is it for you to understand that not complying with their rules does not necessarily equate to an infringement upon their right to make and enforce their rules?
 
Anyone, anywhere has the RIGHT make ANY RULES they want.... yet, if you break any of their RULES, you have NOT infringed on their RIGHTS.... all you have done is broken a "rule".... no-one here (especially me) has EVER STATED that you cannot make rules about anything you want..... I STAND BEHIND YOUR RIGHT TO MAKE RULES!!!!!, even stupid ones!


I also stand up for our RIGHTS, the ones that every human is born with... and these RIGHTS trump anyones rules, no matter where they are....... Whenever a rule comes up against a right, the right always trumps it.... otherwise, we wouldnt have rights.... they would be "possibles"... you know, possibly a right as long as no-one has written a rule about it....
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,531
Messages
610,692
Members
75,032
Latest member
BLACKROCK6
Back
Top