open carry

[MHas]

It's snarky comments like these that leads us to believe the leopard's spots have not changed colors.

I just think it's crazy that you all think that any man, women or child regardless of age, mental health issues or criminal history should be able to legally purchase a firearm and carry it loaded in a public area with people around. Anyone of you who wants to say something about age, don't waste your time. This whole time every one of you has preached to me "it's your god given right" bla bla bla "any restriction is a violation of my 2nd amendment" bla bla bla...no restrictions!!! Lets round up some children with autism and Down syndrome, arm them with Glocks and set them loose in a heavily populated area. If idea, statement or comment on this forum is "stupid" it's is the fact anyone of you would justify this scenario and tell me "0" restrictions on who can legally purchase and carry loaded firearms in public. I guess all us blue-bellied Yankee scum should expect such idiotic thoughts to come from a culture and heritage who also thought owning slaves was also their "god given right".

 

[MHas]

Do you really think you're fooling anybody with this BS? You're anti-OC. As such, you have no business in this sub-forum. This doesn't have to be an echo-chamber all in favor of OC, but it is decidedly not here for antis to come in just to stir the pot. The only time you'll find one of us saying a cross or smart ass word in the concealed carry sub-forum is when someone spews a bunch of lies and myths about OC just like you did in this thread. Otherwise, there are valid pros and cons to be discussed in either forum, but that ship has sailed for you. You're an anti-OC'er. Get lost.
You're getting me all wrong. I think any american citizen over the age of 18 with no mental health issues and a clean criminal record should be "allowed" to legally carry any loaded firearm, pistol, long gun or bazooka, openly or concealed in public or on private land.

 

[Bikenut]

I just think it's crazy that you all think that any man, women or child regardless of age, mental health issues or criminal history should be able to legally purchase a firearm and carry it loaded in a public area with people around. Anyone of you who wants to say something about age, don't waste your time. This whole time every one of you has preached to me "it's your god given right" bla bla bla "any restriction is a violation of my 2nd amendment" bla bla bla...no restrictions!!! Lets round up some children with autism and Down syndrome, arm them with Glocks and set them loose in a heavily populated area. If idea, statement or comment on this forum is "stupid" it's is the fact anyone of you would justify this scenario and tell me "0" restrictions on who can legally purchase and carry loaded firearms in public. I guess all us blue-bellied Yankee scum should expect such idiotic thoughts to come from a culture and heritage who also thought owning slaves was also their "god given right".

Actually I'm amazed that anyone would think that the solution to protecting society from violent mental illness, mental disability, or criminal behavior, is to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

How about we simply restrict the ease of access to victims? A criminal locked up in prison does not have any contact with all those convenient victims walking around in daily life and those with mental issues locked up in hospitals don't have any contact with all those convenient victims walking around in daily life either. And if folks were honest, really honest, about protecting innocents they would realize that keeping the violent from having contact with the innocents is a far more effective way to protect than hoping a violent criminal or nut will obey the law.

Thing is.... laws that say the violent are not allowed to have guns do not stop the violent from having guns. And saying that those laws prevent them from buying guns legally ignores the simple fact that those laws do not stop the violent from buying guns illegally. So those laws do NOT prevent the violent from having guns. What those laws really do is soothe the anxiety of the fearful by giving them the illusion that the law can make them safe by stopping the violent from being violent.

 

[MHas]

Doubtful. Law enforcement is quite aware that they can be sued for their actions and that the best way to avoid consequences is to phone the local magistrate and have that magistrate issue a telephonic warrant for the arrest.
The LEO is covered because 'it wasn't his idea, it was the judges' and the judge is covered by judicial immunity.

Woman Arrested for Legally Open Carrying Wins Lawsuit, Police Say To Hell With Law, They'll Arrest People Regardless - informationliberation

 

[Firefighterchen]

I just think it's crazy that you all think that any man, women or child regardless of age, mental health issues or criminal history should be able to legally purchase a firearm and carry it loaded in a public area with people around. Anyone of you who wants to say something about age, don't waste your time. This whole time every one of you has preached to me "it's your god given right" bla bla bla "any restriction is a violation of my 2nd amendment" bla bla bla...no restrictions!!! Lets round up some children with autism and Down syndrome, arm them with Glocks and set them loose in a heavily populated area. If idea, statement or comment on this forum is "stupid" it's is the fact anyone of you would justify this scenario and tell me "0" restrictions on who can legally purchase and carry loaded firearms in public. I guess all us blue-bellied Yankee scum should expect such idiotic thoughts to come from a culture and heritage who also thought owning slaves was also their "god given right".

Ohh it's for the children.....it makes so much sense now...duuuuhhhh....vomit

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[MHas]

Actually I'm amazed that anyone would think that the solution to protecting society from violent mental illness, mental disability, or criminal behavior, is to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

How about we simply restrict the ease of access to victims? A criminal locked up in prison does not have any contact with all those convenient victims walking around in daily life and those with mental issues locked up in hospitals don't have any contact with all those convenient victims walking around in daily life either. And if folks were honest, really honest, about protecting innocents they would realize that keeping the violent from having contact with the innocents is a far more effective way to protect than hoping a violent criminal or nut will obey the law.

Thing is.... laws that say the violent are not allowed to have guns do not stop the violent from having guns. And saying that those laws prevent them from buying guns legally ignores the simple fact that those laws do not stop the violent from buying guns illegally. So those laws do NOT prevent the violent from having guns. What those laws really do is soothe the anxiety of the fearful by giving them the illusion that the law can make them safe by stopping the violent from being violent.

It's not about "stopping" it's about "reducing". I agree, if a convicted drug dealer or armed robber wants a gun, they will get one. By not allowing them to walk into a Walmart, bassproshops or other gun store and purchase a firearm at their will reduces their accessibility to firearms.

 

[Firefighterchen]

It's not about "stopping" it's about "reducing". I agree, if a convicted drug dealer or armed robber wants a gun, they will get one. By not allowing them to walk into a Walmart, bassproshops or other gun store and purchase a firearm at their will reduces their accessibility to firearms.

It reduces absolutely nothing. That's like saying making it illegal to drive drunk reduces access to cars from drunk people.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Firefighterchen]

What a grand idea...let's attempt to slow down bad people by definitely making it harder on the good people.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[MHas]

It must just be our blue blood. I've asked multiple people today most carry on a daily basis others do not. There was not one person who thought 100% "0" regulations on carrying loaded firearms in public. Out of the 7 people I asked, 6 have lived in MA. Their whole lives 1 was from out of state. Still a northerner.

 

[Firefighterchen]

It must just be our blue blood. I've asked multiple people today most carry on a daily basis others do not. There was not one person who thought 100% "0" regulations on carrying loaded firearms in public. Out of the 7 people I asked, 6 have lived in MA. Their whole lives 1 was from out of state. Still a northerner.

You guys accepted your permission slip requirements as "not strict"...what else do you expect from willing subordinates?

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Bikenut]

It's not about "stopping" it's about "reducing". I agree, if a convicted drug dealer or armed robber wants a gun, they will get one. By not allowing them to walk into a Walmart, bassproshops or other gun store and purchase a firearm at their will reduces their accessibility to firearms.

If we take that reasoning to it's ultimate limit then wouldn't making the possession of a gun by anyone, lawful folks or criminals,... hell let's just confiscate them all... reduce a criminal's accessibility to a gun down to zero?

But reality steps in and the day after no one can possess a gun and all guns are confiscated and destroyed there will be freighters full of guns docking at every port in the country. Planes will fly them in. Guns will be smuggled hidden in the keisters of mules. And guess who will be buying those guns? It won't be the law abiding but will be the criminals. So much for reducing a criminal's accessibility by limiting the law abiding.

What is the goal of those who espouse gun control? Do they want to protect innocent victims or do they just want to "feel safe" because the law says the violent aren't allowed to have guns? Or is it the more sinister goal contained within my sig line below?

 

[NavyLCDR]

I just think it's crazy that you all think that any man, women or child regardless of age, mental health issues or criminal history should be able to legally purchase a firearm and carry it loaded in a public area with people around. Anyone of you who wants to say something about age, don't waste your time. This whole time every one of you has preached to me "it's your god given right" bla bla bla "any restriction is a violation of my 2nd amendment" bla bla bla...no restrictions!!! Lets round up some children with autism and Down syndrome, arm them with Glocks and set them loose in a heavily populated area. If idea, statement or comment on this forum is "stupid" it's is the fact anyone of you would justify this scenario and tell me "0" restrictions on who can legally purchase and carry loaded firearms in public. I guess all us blue-bellied Yankee scum should expect such idiotic thoughts to come from a culture and heritage who also thought owning slaves was also their "god given right".

First, none of us ever advocated for children carrying guns. Most Constitutionally protected rights are protected for those 18 and over.

Second, if a person is too dangerous to possess a gun due to mental illness or criminal history than they are too dangerous to be walking around the public streets unsupervised.

Third, what our biggest issue and disagreement is background checks, fingerprints and licenses to carry firearms.

A. Background checks, fingerprints and licenses to carry firearms do not make it illegal for the mentally ill and criminals to carry, purchase or possess firearms. It is already illegal for them to do so. And it is already for me to sell them one if I have reasonable cause to believe they are prohibited.
B. If a criminal will not obey a law that makes it illegal for them to commit murder, rape, armed robbery, etc, then why do you think that they will obey a law that makes it illegal to carry a gun in a school, or to possess a gun, or to volunteer for a background check before buying a gun? How many laws are you going to pile on top of other laws when the criminal won't obey the first says that makes it illegal to steal or rape?
C. Background checks, fingerprints and licenses to carry firearms due not stop the criminals from buying, possessing and carrying firearms, it only means they have to go to the black market to get them which, by itself, contributes greatly to all kinds of crime.
D. Background checks, fingerprints and licenses to carry firearms are only roadblocks that those who volunteer to obey the law must clear in order to be able to protect themselves.
E. Background checks, fingerprints and licenses to carry firearms tie up law enforcement resources processing them on people who are voluntarily complying with the law - rather than being able to use those resources to actually get out there and investigate crime and catch criminals.

So, you can feel all warm and fuzzy inside with your gun control laws, no guns signs, background checks and licenses - meanwhile Joe law abiding Citizen will pay the taxes and jump through the hoops you put in front of them to lawfully protect themselves from the criminals that your laws and signs and licenses are not stopping - until we get fed up with the B.S. and become criminals ourselves for no other reason than to protect ourselves.

Link Removed

 

[MHas]

You guys accepted your permission slip requirements as "not strict"...what else do you expect from willing subordinates?

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

There's only 2 sides. Restrictions and no restrictions. If you firmly believe no restrictions what so ever that means you think it's ok for a 12 year old autistic child should be able to walk into Walmart buy a gun and ammo, strap up and go off into a heavily populated. If you believe a 12 year old autistic child should not be able to purchase, and carry a loaded firearm then you can't be for 100% "0" restrictions. It's a coin. There are only 2 sides. No grey area.

 

[MHas]

First, none of us ever advocated for children carrying guns. Most Constitutionally protected rights are protected for those 18 and over.

Second, if a person is too dangerous to possess a gun due to mental illness or criminal history than they are too dangerous to be walking around the public streets unsupervised.

Third, what our biggest issue and disagreement is background checks, fingerprints and licenses to carry firearms.

A. Background checks, fingerprints and licenses to carry firearms do not make it illegal for the mentally ill and criminals to carry, purchase or possess firearms. It is already illegal for them to do so. And it is already for me to sell them one if I have reasonable cause to believe they are prohibited.
B. If a criminal will not obey a law that makes it illegal for them to commit murder, rape, armed robbery, etc, then why do you think that they will obey a law that makes it illegal to carry a gun in a school, or to possess a gun, or to volunteer for a background check before buying a gun? How many laws are you going to pile on top of other laws when the criminal won't obey the first says that makes it illegal to steal or rape?
C. Background checks, fingerprints and licenses to carry firearms due not stop the criminals from buying, possessing and carrying firearms, it only means they have to go to the black market to get them which, by itself, contributes greatly to all kinds of crime.
D. Background checks, fingerprints and licenses to carry firearms are only roadblocks that those who volunteer to obey the law must clear in order to be able to protect themselves.
E. Background checks, fingerprints and licenses to carry firearms tie up law enforcement resources processing them on people who are voluntarily complying with the law - rather than being able to use those resources to actually get out there and investigate crime and catch criminals.

So, you can feel all warm and fuzzy inside with your gun control laws, no guns signs, background checks and licenses - meanwhile Joe law abiding Citizen will pay the taxes and jump through the hoops you put in front of them to lawfully protect themselves from the criminals that your laws and signs and licenses are not stopping - until we get fed up with the B.S. and become criminals ourselves for no other reason than to protect ourselves.

Link Removed

Ohhhh ok. So you do believe in at least age restrictions... We don't have "no gun signs" in MA. Everyone who carries, carries concealed. We are only prohibited from carrying in a courthouse, school buildings and federal buildings. Unless you have a shirt that says "under this shirt is a gun," you can carry anywhere. No gun signs do not mean you can't carry a gun. The property owner has to tell "you" that you have to leave the property if you wish to carry a firearm. In which case you DO have to leave. It is a crime not to leave if asked. If your pistol is concealed then nobody will see it and ask you to leave. You have a better chance of being able to protect yourself if needed because you can carry everywhere you go. Unless you have to goto parents day at your kids school, run to the courthouse and stop by the post office on your way home. In that case like Johnny Cash said "don't bring your guns to town"

 

[Firefighterchen]

There's only 2 sides. Restrictions and no restrictions. If you firmly believe no restrictions what so ever that means you think it's ok for a 12 year old autistic child should be able to walk into Walmart buy a gun and ammo, strap up and go off into a heavily populated. If you believe a 12 year old autistic child should not be able to purchase, and carry a loaded firearm then you can't be for 100% "0" restrictions. It's a coin. There are only 2 sides. No grey area.

If there are only two sides to the coin, no grey area, it's either complete freedom or complete restriction. I'll take complete freedom and let the parents decide what the child gets to do. If you don't want that, you are for 100% restriction and getting rid of all guns so no one can get hurt by them.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[MHas]

If there are only two sides to the coin, no grey area, it's either complete freedom or complete restriction. I'll take complete freedom and let the parents decide what the child gets to do. If you don't want that, you are for 100% restriction and getting rid of all guns so no one can get hurt by them.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

Yes I'm pro restrictions for carrying loaded firearms in public. Only 3. Age, mental health and criminal background. That's only carrying loaded firearms in public. Any American citizen should be able to own and posses any type of firearm. Pistol, long gun, cannon whatever. If its at home or on your property for protection of self and property.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Yes I'm pro restrictions for carrying loaded firearms in public. Only 3. Age, mental health and criminal background. That's only carrying loaded firearms in public. Any American citizen should be able to own and posses any type of firearm. Pistol, long gun, cannon whatever. If its at home or on your property for protection of self and property.

No grey area. Your choice is invalid.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Axeanda45]

Yes I'm pro restrictions for carrying loaded firearms in public. Only 3. Age, mental health and criminal background. That's only carrying loaded firearms in public. Any American citizen should be able to own and posses any type of firearm. Pistol, long gun, cannon whatever. If its at home or on your property for protection of self and property.

Nope, YOU already stated it can ONLY be 100% or nothing..... No grey.... Do you even know what you wrote 5 minutes ago? 10? Your waffling from one end to the other is getting you confused...

 

[MHas]

No grey area. Your choice is invalid.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

I took no middle ground. I'm 100% pro restrictions on carrying loaded firearms in public. You brought up a completely differnt topic. Pro gun or against guns. That's apples and oranges.

 

[MHas]

I took no middle ground. I'm 100% pro restrictions on carrying loaded firearms in public. You brought up a completely differnt topic. Pro gun or against guns. That's apples and oranges.

Being 100% pro restrictions on carrying loaded firearms in public does not mean that you're pro restriction of 100% ban on firearms. I know this all may be tough to comprehend. Try reading this twice. That helps my little sister.