another dumb activist. his 15mins


Rhino said:
Okay. I'll test that theory. Here goes. Just because you have a right to do something, and you can do it, doesn't mean you should do it. Now, did I just tell you what you should not do?

Yes, because you are directing your statement personally to me.... you did just tell me what I should not do. You just told me that "Just because I can doesn't mean you think I should."
Really? And what was it I told you not to do?

And if you were to make that as a general statement then you are telling everyone "Just because you can doesn't mean I think you should."
Oh, so now you know what I'm thinking and I don't. It must be tough living all alone on that planet of yours.

No. Did I just tell you to adhere to my beliefs or principles? No. Did I just disapprove of any action by you by saying those words?

You just told me that you disapprove of my doing something, in general, just because I can but you don't think I should since your principle says so.
:lol: You sound like a two year old trying to deny something he did wrong! Where did I voice disapproval?

No. I stated a principle.

No. You told me that just because I can do something that doesn't mean I should.
Yes, I did. It doesn't mean you shouldn't either. How many more pages can we waste debating that statement?

A principle that is not tied to any specific action or event.

Incorrect. By using the word "something" instead of a specific it made the statement a general statement that still means... "just because you can doesn't mean I think you should."
:lol: Again, you're trying to say you know what I was thinking and I don't! You're a laugh a minute! You don't decide what I was saying. I'm not your puppet or your ventriloquist dummy. I don't know what kind of control you exercise over people in your day to day personal life but I assure you, I'm not one of those people. Your 'interpretation' would mean I disapprove of you doing anything at all, because "something", being a general statement could include any possible act. That's a ridiculous claim.

You're still attaching a context I wasn't using.

Because the word "you" is used within the statement the judgmental context is contained within the statement itself since the meaning of the statement is a judgment of what I should not do according to your principle.
So, according to you, whoever said "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink", only intended it to apply to one person. Did it only apply to one horse? You seem to be the self proclaimed expert on all this so I figure we should ask. How about "You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."? Was that intended for only one person too? Sorry, but I'm gonna have to raise the BS flag on that one too.

And for the umpteenth time, I wasn't the one who first posted those words. All I said was that the principle itself is valid and logical, which it is.

The principle itself is valid and logical if you, as an individual, accept that logic and wish to apply it to your life. But when you direct that statement to me, (or anyone) even in general terms, then you are expecting the validity and logic that you accept to also apply to me/them. Only I don't accept either the logic or the validity and therefor reject the principle entirely.
Reject all you want. That doesn't change the validity or anything else. You could have done that 56 posts ago instead of wasting all this time going in circles trying to claim you knew what I meant and I didn't.

And we've since been expending seemingly endless time arguing because you and Blue keep trying to attach meanings to my remarks that I never stated, implied or intended, despite the fact that I've told you that over and over again.

Words have meaning... words strung together contain meanings. The statement "Just because you can doesn't mean you should." whether a specific action is mentioned or not carries the meaning of judgement that there are things people should not do even if they can. Thing is... who is passing judgement on whom? If you say it to yourself... fine. If you say it to me... not so fine.
I didn't say it to you. Actually, originally I didn't say it at all. And yet 56 posts later......

I already said the cop had a motive, and a context I wasn't using. I've said that repeatedly. If the cop had said "A place for everything, everything in its place.", and I had said it was a sound, logical principle, would we still be arguing about that 51 posts later too?

If the cop was referring to open carry when he made that statement to the open carrier then it would not have been used as a principle but would have been used to denote that, in the cop's opinion, the park was not the place for open carry. And yes, we would still be having this discussion.
GASP!!! Even if he said it without "you" in it?!?!?!?!??? You would be talking to yourself.

Then it will have to remain contentious, because people voice principles to each other every day. You've voiced the principles of individual rights and freedom repeatedly in this thread. Should we now say you should keep those principles to yourself instead of trying to control us? Sorry, but I'll voice any principle I feel like voicing. It's not my fault if you can't understand them, or refuse to.
I try my best to explain the principles of freedom and rights. But I don't tell folks... "Just because you have freedoms and rights that doesn't mean you should exercise them."
Good. I don't either.

The problem isn't that I do not understand what you are saying... the problem is that I understand what the words that you are using in the manner they are being used actually mean.
Hardly. You are assigning your own meaning to what I said, despite my explaining that you misinterpreted it, and you are compounding your error by ridiculously and arrogantly claiming that you know what I was thinking and what I intended, and that I don't. That might fly with your psychiatrist, but it just makes me laugh. Most people just ask for a clarification when they don't understand something. I've never had any problem rephrasing anything I've written if it wasn't clear, but in this case, I wasn't the one who wrote the phrase. It's truly a rare and novel approach to claim you know what others think and that they don't. I'll give you high marks for originality, and even for comedy, but I'm afraid your logic and credibility are shot.

The principle that just because you (the collective you) have a right to do something doesn't mean you should is valid and logical, though it's more commonly stated as 'just because you can do something doesn't mean you should'. There's nothing in that statement tha means you shouldn't exercise your rights. On the contrary, as I stated above, the converse is also valid and logical. It doesn't mean you shouldn't either. You have the right to swim in the ocean with your gun. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. But that doesn't in any way mean you can't do that if you want to. It's your choice. The ultimate choice is always up to you. Trying to claim that I'm discouraging or disapproving of anyone's rights by saying those things is patently absurd.
 

It was an open ended question with no specific person it was addressing on a public forum. Anyone can answer it at anytime.

I was speaking of the anti gun nuts, who are trying to legislate our rights away using the exact same argument and reasoning you are. Like bikenut said, telling yourself that is one thing, telling someone else that is another.
What reasoning have I used that the anti gun nuts are using?
 
Open carry is 99.9% safe but it is no guarantee that you will not encounter dangers that is why practice and awareness is important to help you protect life and property.
I recommend against open carry styles that prevent you from seeing if someone is going after your gun such as holstered on the back.
Hmmmm... now that is a markedly different perspective than...

If I am openly carrying armed robbers might see me as a threat before I can react and shoot thus removing the threat to their crime. If they think I am unarmed than I have the advantage of surpirse. I am also aware of instances of open carriers being targeted for their weapon and I do not want my weapon being stolen and used for homicide or suicide or both. I have heard of a cop that offered a woman a ride home in the front and she without warning grabbed his gun and blew her brains out and I think he is lucky that she was not homicidal.
And I knew the actual incidents of open carriers being being shot first or targeted by a criminal, or even nuts, (for any reason) were so few in comparison to the thousands of open carry hours represented by those decades of folks openly carrying that not only are they rare.. they are so rare they are statistically not even on the chart.

Not only that but if those things were happening with any regularity the anti gunners and the media would be having a field day with them.... but such is not the case because it isn't happening in any number to be more than an oddity.

And the "Yer gonna be shot first!" or "The bad guy is gonna take yer gun and shove it up yer own... ummm... waste outlet!!" arguments are nothing more than expressions of the person's own fear of actually open carrying.
 
Really? And what was it I told you not to do?

Oh, so now you know what I'm thinking and I don't. It must be tough living all alone on that planet of yours.

:lol: You sound like a two year old trying to deny something he did wrong! Where did I voice disapproval?

Yes, I did. It doesn't mean you shouldn't either. How many more pages can we waste debating that statement?

:lol: Again, you're trying to say you know what I was thinking and I don't! You're a laugh a minute! You don't decide what I was saying. I'm not your puppet or your ventriloquist dummy. I don't know what kind of control you exercise over people in your day to day personal life but I assure you, I'm not one of those people. Your 'interpretation' would mean I disapprove of you doing anything at all, because "something", being a general statement could include any possible act. That's a ridiculous claim.

So, according to you, whoever said "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink", only intended it to apply to one person. Did it only apply to one horse? You seem to be the self proclaimed expert on all this so I figure we should ask. How about "You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."? Was that intended for only one person too? Sorry, but I'm gonna have to raise the BS flag on that one too.

Reject all you want. That doesn't change the validity or anything else. You could have done that 56 posts ago instead of wasting all this time going in circles trying to claim you knew what I meant and I didn't.

I didn't say it to you. Actually, originally I didn't say it at all. And yet 56 posts later......

GASP!!! Even if he said it without "you" in it?!?!?!?!??? You would be talking to yourself.

Good. I don't either.

Hardly. You are assigning your own meaning to what I said, despite my explaining that you misinterpreted it, and you are compounding your error by ridiculously and arrogantly claiming that you know what I was thinking and what I intended, and that I don't. That might fly with your psychiatrist, but it just makes me laugh. Most people just ask for a clarification when they don't understand something. I've never had any problem rephrasing anything I've written if it wasn't clear, but in this case, I wasn't the one who wrote the phrase. It's truly a rare and novel approach to claim you know what others think and that they don't. I'll give you high marks for originality, and even for comedy, but I'm afraid your logic and credibility are shot.

The principle that just because you (the collective you) have a right to do something doesn't mean you should is valid and logical, though it's more commonly stated as 'just because you can do something doesn't mean you should'. There's nothing in that statement tha means you shouldn't exercise your rights. On the contrary, as I stated above, the converse is also valid and logical. It doesn't mean you shouldn't either. You have the right to swim in the ocean with your gun. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. But that doesn't in any way mean you can't do that if you want to. It's your choice. The ultimate choice is always up to you. Trying to claim that I'm discouraging or disapproving of anyone's rights by saying those things is patently absurd.
Well ... some of those 56 posts were your replies trying to uphold that what you said isn't what you meant.... but... thanks for the insults. Have a very nice day.
 
Well ... some of those 56 posts were your replies trying to uphold that what you said isn't what you meant.... but... thanks for the insults. Have a very nice day.
You mean what I didn't say? Yeah, I did keep having to repeat myself over and over again since some didn't seem to be able to take what I was saying at face value instead of attaching meaning to it that I did not express or intend. And if you think that was insulting to you, try going back and looking at it from my perspective. When was the last time you had people tell you that you didn't know what you were thinking, but they did? And had them make you repeat the explanation over and over again while they disregarded it over and over again? There was plenty of insult for me in there. However, I'd be more than happy to see this episode end, so my apologies for the insults.
 
You mean what I didn't say? Yeah, I did keep having to repeat myself over and over again since some didn't seem to be able to take what I was saying at face value instead of attaching meaning to it that I did not express or intend. And if you think that was insulting to you, try going back and looking at it from my perspective. When was the last time you had people tell you that you didn't know what you were thinking, but they did? And had them make you repeat the explanation over and over again while they disregarded it over and over again? There was plenty of insult for me in there. However, I'd be more than happy to see this episode end, so my apologies for the insults.
When the word "you" is used it means the sentence is directed at a person or group of persons... it personalizes the statement, it is not stating a principle simply because the word "you" makes it directed at a person or persons.

From:

You - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

you
pronoun \ˈyü, yə also yē\
Definition of YOU
1
: the one or ones being addressed —used as the pronoun of the second person singular or plural in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive <you may sit in that chair> <you are my friends> <can I pour you a cup of tea>
bold added by me for emphasis

Stating a principle would not contain any wording that addresses a person or persons. Hence stating that:

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should." is a statement directed at a person/persons.

--->"Just because it is possible to do something doesn't necessarily mean it would be an advantageous thing thing to do." is a statement of a principle since the sentence structure does not contain any references to a person/persons but merely states the principle itself.

Plus context is everything... saying that "A place for everything and everything in it's place" as a general statement is stating a principle. But if a cop is talking to an open carrier in a park and expressing a negative attitude about open carry in a park and says "A place for everything and everything in it's place" the cop is NOT referring to a principle but is referring to his/her personal opinion that a park is not the appropriate place for open carry.

Rhino.. please understand this very important thing.. and it is a very important thing. I bear you no ill will and I understand that you and I are on the same side of rights. The only thing we are arguing about is how the English language is being used to express what you want to convey. And no matter how much you want me to understand that..

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should." is supposed to be expressing a principle... simply because the word "you" is in there it contains a judgmental connotation because the word "you" personalizes it (whether to an individual or to a group of individuals). I didn't say that... the English language says that.

And... because we are on the same side of rights there is no apology necessary. I have absolutely no doubt that if we were to sit down over a cuppa coffee (and I'll buy!.. and that is an invitation.) that even though we would likely have a spirited debate we would agree much more than we would disagree.

Now .. a general statement... if folks would like to understand the meaning of the statement "Just because you can doesn't mean you should." as being a judgmental statement perhaps looking up the meaning of the word "should" would be illuminating.

And... again a general statement... if folks want other people to understand what they mean to say then they need to use words in a way that expresses what they mean.
 
It was an open ended question with no specific person it was addressing on a public forum. Anyone can answer it at anytime.

I was speaking of the anti gun nuts, who are trying to legislate our rights away using the exact same argument and reasoning you are. Like bikenut said, telling yourself that is one thing, telling someone else that is another.
What reasoning have I used that the anti gun nuts are using?

Refer to bike nuts post. But just for ease, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should." That reasoning and argument.
 
Here is a great post on open carrying;

<b>The Open Carry Argument</b><br />
<br />
My primary goal when I’m out and about, besides whatever I went out and about to do, is to go about peaceably and not be the victim of a violent crime. To that end I carry a firearm whenever I go out as well as follow all the other standard safety practices like maintaining situational awareness, staying out of high crime areas, and avoiding confrontation. I also have a larger overall goal of making it through my life without shooting anyone. Simply put, I don’t want to be responsible, legally or morally, for another’s death. Those two goals might appear at first blush to be mutually exclusive, and with concealed carry it would be a difficult set of goals to realize. <br />
<br />
Carry of any firearm or other weapon for defensive purposes is a solemn responsibility. Those of us that do (openly or concealed) are mortified by the idea, constantly promoted by the pacifists, that our behavior is more reckless because we are armed. In other words, because we carry a handgun we take more risks than we would if we were unarmed. While it would be dishonest to claim we are all responsible gun owners, it is my belief that the vast majority of us are. Regardless of what or how you carry, you need to come to the realization that you are setting yourself up to lose. Whenever you are placed in a defensive situation, you will always lose; it’s only the degree of loss that’s negotiable. Ayoob hits on this in his book, In the Gravest Extreme. He suggests tossing the robber a small wad of cash and moving off, even if you <i>could</i> prevail with a weapon. There’s a very good reason for this. <b><i>Regardless of how skilled you are at drawing your weapon, you are going to lose.</i></b> It may be only a minor loss, like being very shaken up and not sleeping well for a few days, or it may be a major loss, like becoming fertilizer, or (most likely) it may be somewhere in-between, but you <i>always</i> lose. Your life will not be the same even if you prevail. <br />
<br />
Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed. Every study I’ve ever read, not most but <i>every</i> study, says that criminals will avoid an armed person or home when selecting a victim. That only makes sense, right? Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self preservation we all have. Hyenas don’t attack lions to steal the gazelle the lions have just killed. It’s all about risk management; are the potential gains (a tasty gazelle dinner) worth the risks (pain and damage the lion’s teeth will cause), and does the hyena really need to test the lion to figure out the answer? No, the hyena can see the lion’s teeth and knows to stay well clear.<br />
<br />
<b>Deterrent Value:</b><br />
When I’m carrying concealed I feel like my ‘teeth’ are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value. If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber, I appear as easy a target as almost anyone else out on the street. <b>My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself.</b> My goal, however, is <i>not</i> to be a victim in the first place, remember? I don’t want to be a victim that fought back successfully and triumphed; I prefer to not be victimized at all. I recognize that there are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and ‘surprise’ the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity. Concealed carry is good; it throws a wrench in the works for criminals who might see the teeming masses as a smorgasbord of financial gain. This deterrent effect is, nonetheless, indirect and often nil. At some point the thug will weigh the risks vs. the gains; is his current desperation for money/drugs/booze/gold grille greater than the gamble that one of those people <i>might</i> be carrying a gun? If he decides to play the odds, which helped along with surprise tip the scale in his favor, he will attack. Will his attack allow enough time for me to draw my concealed firearm to affect a defense? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.<br />
<br />
<b>Remember, I don’t want to be a victim <i>and</i> I don’t want to shoot anyone.</b> So how do I realize both goals; or how do I make them inclusive? I can do that through open carry. By making it clear and obvious that I am armed, that I have teeth, I tip the risk scale to the point that the criminal’s gains are far outweighed by the risk. There is no ambiguity when the thug is doing his risk assessment, there’s something right there in plain sight that can quickly and painfully change or terminate his life. You may not think his life has much value, but as I mentioned before, he has the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it’s every bit as valuable as yours is to you. It would be foolish to ignore this indisputable fact when you develop your overall tactical strategy.<br />
<br />
<b>[URL="Link Removed Five Stages of Violent Crime[/URL]</b><br />
I am a firm believer in this defense theology and urge anyone who carries a firearm for protection (and even those who do not) to follow the link and read it carefully. Please, for your and your family’s sake, read that. Drill down into the hyperlinks for better explanations; absorb as much information as you can. A violent crime does not begin at the point where one person with ill intent draws a weapon or attacks another. <br />
<b>The Five Stages of Violent Crime: </b><br />
Crime and violence are processes that take time to develop. The attack is not the first step, the preliminary triangle must be built. There are five distinct stages that are easily identified:<br />
1) Intent <br />
2) Interview <br />
3) Positioning<br />
4) Attack <br />
5) Reaction
<br />
I do not believe the act begins after the BG has made his intentions known by drawing on you (attack); it began when he formed the intent. Well, there’s not a lot I can do personally to stop another’s intent, so I need to look a little farther along in the sequence and try to derail that train before it gets to the attack. For the sake of argument, let’s remove weapons from the equation for just a moment. A 5’2” unarmed attacker isn’t going to choose a 6’6” victim over a 5’1” victim, right? He’s going to attack the easier target. Now let’s come back to the reality of violent crime and add back the weapons. Concealed carry presumes it is better to wait until the opponent has drawn his knife or gun and then try to ‘fix’ the situation. It’s seems a bit foolish to promote the idea that it’s better to attempt to stop a violent crime in the fourth stage when you could instead prevent it in the second. A concealed weapon cannot deter an attack at the ‘interview’ stage; it’s completely ineffectual in that role. Open carry is the only method that provides a direct deterrent. Let’s say the bad-guy missed the openly carried pistol and holster during the interview stage, and has proceeded to the ‘positioning’ stage. Chances are pretty good he’ll see it at some point then, right? Then, let’s say the planets have all aligned just so and he, for whatever reason, has begun his attack despite your openly carried sidearm. At this point, the OCer is on level footing with the CCer, the attack has begun. Who has the advantage? Well, I’m going to say that with all things being equal (skill level and equipment) the OCer has a speed of draw advantage over the CCer. <br />
<br />
<b>First One To Be Shot:</b><br />
There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or ‘the first one shot’ when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened. If the robber walks in and sees that you’re armed, his whole plan has encountered an unexpected variable. In bank robberies where he might expect to see an armed guard he will have already factored that possibility into his plan, but only for the armed guard, not for open or concealed carry citizens. No robber robs a bank without at least a rudimentary plan. Nevertheless, being present for a bank robbery is an extremely remote possibility for most of us regardless of our preferred method of handgun carry, so let’s go back in the 7-11. If the robber sees someone is armed he is forced to either significantly alter the plan or abort it outright. Robbing is an inherently apprehensive occupation, and one that doesn’t respond well to instant modifications. He is not prepared to commit murder when he only planned for larceny. He knows that a petty robbery will not garner the intense police manhunt a murder would. He doesn’t know if you’re an armed citizen or a police officer and isn’t going to take the time to figure it out. Either way, if someone in the 7-11 is unexpectedly armed, how many others might be similarly adorned and where might they be? Does this unexpectedly armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed nearby, someone who is watching right now? Self preservation compels him to abort the plan for one that is less risky. So we see that the logic matches the history; open carriers are not the first ones shot because it doesn’t make sense in any common street crime scenario that they would be. If your personal self protection plan emphasizes “Hollywood” style crimes over the more realistic street mugging, it might be best to stay home.<br />
<br />
<b>Surprise:</b><br />
Probably the most common condemnation of open carry comes from the armchair tacticians who believe it’s better to have the element of surprise in a criminal encounter. Although this was touched on in the previous paragraph about deterrence, I’ll expand on it specifically here because there are some important truths you need to consider before you lean too heavily on this false support. Surprise as a defensive tactic is often based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios, and seems to exist only in the minds of concealed carry firearms proponents. The circumstance where several street toughs surround and taunt you for a while before robbing you, like in some Charles Bronson movie, is not realistic; the mugger wants to get in and out as fast as possible. In most cases you will have only seconds to realize what’s happening, make a decision, and react. Imagine you’re walking along the sidewalk when two gangsta looking teenagers suddenly appear at the corner coming in the opposite direction. You have only seconds to react <i>if</i> their intent was to victimize you. Do you draw your concealed firearm now or wait until there’s an actual visible threat? If they are just on their way to church and you pull a gun on them, you are the criminal and you will likely forever lose your firearms rights for such a foolish action. If you don’t draw and they pull a knife or pistol when they’re just a couple steps away, your only options are draw (if you think you can) or comply. Imagine staring at the shiny blade of a knife being held by a very nervous and violent mugger, three inches from your or your wife’s throat and having to decide whether or not you have time to draw from concealment. The element of surprise may not do you any good; in fact the only surprising thing that might happen is that your concealed carry pistol gets taken along with your wallet. The thug will later get a good chuckle with his buddies about how you brought a gun to a knife fight. <b>The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one.</b> What many internet commandos call ‘defensive surprise’ is nothing more than damage control, a last ditch effort to fight your way back out of a dangerous situation. I am not aware of any army that teaches using surprise as a defense against attack. No squad of soldiers goes on patrol with their weapons hidden so that they can ‘surprise’ the enemy should they walk into an ambush. <br />
<br />
<b>It Will Get Stolen:</b><br />
Another common criticism of open carry is that the firearm itself will be the target of theft, prompting a criminal to attack simply to get the gun from you. Like the previous example of being the first one shot in a robbery, above, this is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence it happens. It also blindly ignores the more obvious fact that anything you possess can make you the target of a crime, be it a car, a watch, or even a female companion (girlfriend, wife, or daughter). Crooks commonly steal for only one of two reasons; to get something you have that they want, or to get something that you have so they can sell it and buy something they want. I don’t claim it could never happen; just that it’s so remote a possibility that it doesn’t warrant drastic alterations to our self defense strategies. If you believe otherwise, leave your wife, children, watch, sunglasses, jewelry, and cell phone at home, hop into your Pinto wagon, and head out to do your thing. Very often, someone critical of open carry will cite some example of a uniformed police officer whose gun was taken by a violent criminal, and yes, this does indeed happen. The argument, however, breaks down when they assume the officer was targeted solely to steal his firearm. What is more likely is that the officer was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. More often, the officer’s gun is taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody due to an entirely unrelated matter. However, let’s suppose, for argument, that a police officer really was attacked just to get his firearm. What actions did the police department take to prevent it from reoccurring? Did they demand that their officers carry concealed? No, of course not. You should, like the police, prioritize your defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.<br />
<br />
<b>It Scares People:</b><br />
One other statement against open carry I hear is that it damages public perception of firearms owners, or that by carrying openly we are not being good ambassadors to the public. While there are some people who have a genuine fear of firearms, due either to some horrible past experience or anti-gun indoctrination, the majority of people are either indifferent to them or quite fascinated by them. I’ve never kept track of the dozens of fellow citizens I’ve encountered who have marveled at the idea of open carry, but I do know exactly how many have expressed displeasure at it; one. People are scared of many things for many reasons; however, pretending those things do not exist only perpetuates the fear. Someone who is disturbed by open carry is going to be every bit as disturbed by concealed carry. The only effective way to overcome a fear is to come to the intellectual realization that the phobia is based on emotion and not on fact. By being a firsthand witness that a firearm was carried responsibly and peaceably, and wasn’t being carried in the commission of a crime, one who was apprehensive about firearms discovers their fear is not fact based, but emotional. Thus, open carry can be a very effectual way of helping to overcome the emotionally based fear of the firearm. After all, you’d be much more likely to believe in ghosts if you saw one rather than if you listened to a ghost story around a campfire. In other words, we give significantly more credibility to the things we experience than we do to the things we hear. The bottom line is that this argument is made by people who don’t, cant, or haven’t carried openly; those of us who do so on a regular basis have an entirely different experience.<br />
<br />
<b>I’m Not Comfortable Carrying Openly:</b><br />
This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual. We all have a comfort zone for any aspect of our lives and we prefer to stay within that comfort zone. We all agree that it’s better to be armed and never need the firearm than it is to need it and not have it. There is a point where concealing your firearm becomes so problematic, due to conditions like temperature or comfort, that some choose to either leave it behind or carry in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to draw it quickly. If it takes me five or six seconds to draw my firearm from deep concealment and I had sufficient time before hand to actually do so, I would prefer to use that five or six seconds to avoid the entire encounter. I’m glad we have concealed carry laws in most of the states; it empowers and protects not only us but the general public through the offset deterrent effect. Some of us, however, choose the more direct deterrent effect of open carry. <br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
No, open carry is not the be-all-end-all of self defense any more than concealed carry is. The purpose of this essay is not to convince you to carry a firearm openly, but to merely point out the reasoning I used to determine that it is often the best option for me. If you think otherwise, please feel free to write an essay of your own outlining the reasoning you used. I would suggest that you avoid the intellectual mistake of emphasizing rare or unlikely defense scenarios that many of us will never experience. I believe one should prioritize for the most likely threat, not the least likely threat. I don’t put Hollywood style bank robberies high on my threat list because I rarely go into a bank and those types of robberies are very rare themselves. I live in the most crime riddled city in the northwest; the most likely threat here is some young male with a knife or gun trying to carjack me or mug me on the street, in the park, or in a parking lot. With this knowledge I build my personal self protection plan based on that manner of attack. This may not suit you, especially if you live in Hollywood.
 
When the word "you" is used........
So much for the episode ending.

I'm not quoting the rest of your post because I have no desire to keep going in circles. I think we've both stated our cases well enough and I'm just going to agree to disagree. I bear no ill will either, and I'd like it to stay that way. We're starting to sound like Bill Clinton debating the meaning of "is".
 
This guy open carries and records himself doing it all the time. The overwhelming majority of his recorded contact with cops is friendly, calm, and give-and-take. I posted a video here earlier in the thread of an encounter he had with two cops that went quite well.

In the case of the video in the OP, I really think you have it exactly backwards. The cops were clearly the ones who started the confrontation. One asked him, "So what's your purpose for carrying a sidearm?"

He answered, "It's my legal right to."

The cop said in response to that, "So you're going to be difficult."

Those were the first words uttered between the guy and the cop who was doing the talking at the start. From first contact, and first word, to a conclusion that the guy was being difficult for exercising his God-given rights, took all of 15 seconds. In less than a minute in, the second cop barked out the order, "Quit talking!" The cops showed up with a preconceived chip on their shoulders. The guy wasn't doing anything wrong, and as the other video I linked to shows, if they had shown up and just talked to him like a human being, it wouldn't have been any kind of incident at all, and he would've still posted the video on YouTube just to show how great the cops were in whatever town he was in in the OP video.

No Argument here. I agree I think those P.O.'s mis-handled the situation in reference to the above Q&A. If its legal to open carry there is no reason to ask him why he is openly carrying a firearm. And if the citizen doesn't want to explain his reasons-So be it. I have neither the time nor inclination to debate this guy or explain my point of view. It is an enduring mystery to me why those two P.O.'s went thru all that.

I don't follow you here. How is the "condition corrected" if he refuses to let you inspect his firearm? And why would you ask to inspect his perfectly legal property anyway? And under what authority would you ask to see his ID if you have no reasonable suspicion of a crime either being committed or about to be committed?

Condition Corrected is cop short hand for assignment resolved without field report, summons or arrest.

I think you mean legal reasoning. I have the common law right of inquiry. I can ask a person any questions reasonable and pertinent to the situation or ask to examine any property. A citizen has the common law right to say " I don't feel like answering any of your questions, showing you any ID or letting you examine any of my property." Or, "am I free to go?" ect. If he refuses to ID himself or let me examine his firearm, thats his right and he can just walk away.


Why are the words "constitutional rights" in quotes in the above text? What might it be fair for someone to infer from you separating those words out the way you did?

Typo.

And why is it your job to make contact with him? He was clearly out in the wide open. You could've observed that he was acting perfectly lawfully and asked Dispatch to call back whoever called in the MWAG report and educate them that the guy wasn't doing anything wrong and, therefore, you had no legal cause to contact him.

Give me a break. Every MWAG call is investigated. A Sgt also responds. And I have abundant authority to investigate any gun call-its called Dept Policy. And our dispatchers are waaay to busy, nor is it their job to call back complainants and "educate" them.

Did you mean to say you *wouldn't* waste 1/2 a second explaining your views? Regardless, if the first two cops on the scene in the OP had only spent 1/2 a second telling the guy their views, and the rest of conversation wasn't spent barking out orders like "Quit talking!" when they had absolutely no reason to even be talking to him in the first place, chances are, they would've been featured on his YouTube channel as "Met Some Great Cops in..." such-and-such a city.

Typo #2.

The cops were clearly at fault for this encounter not going well. The only reason the activist sounds so whiny is because he has a speech impediment that is exacerbated by being scared and/or excited. He explains that on his channel, and I think he mentioned it to the cops in the "good cop encounter" I posted and linked to above.

Agree with that. But his whiny voice doesnt help his case.

Blues

Quick question, cany you open carry a loaded firearm? or does it have to be unloaded.
 
Quick question, cany you open carry a loaded firearm? or does it have to be unloaded.

In OR you can carry a loaded firearm openly except in cities with ordinances against it (ie: Beaverton, Portland, Tigard, Oregon City, Independence). Having an OR CHL exempts you from those ordinances. Warren, MarkedGuardian, has a CHL so he can carry loaded openly everywhere.
 
Quick question, cany you open carry a loaded firearm? or does it have to be unloaded.

My jurisdiction's open carry laws are strange. There is an Attorney General's official opinion on the subject that was issued in 1984 that is unequivocal about open carry being legal in the state of Alabama. All the relevant code sections are cited in that opinion, including two sections where the person making the inquiry asks if they conflict. The answer given by the AG is yes, they do, and the latest code passed takes precedence, which is his basis for saying that open carry is legal.

However, in March, '11, a guy was arrested and eventually convicted for open carrying in Jacksonville, AL. That link goes to a thread on another forum, "Alabama Open Carry," obviously a site dedicated to promoting open carry. The thread that chronicles the arrest and conviction in Jacksonville is 50 pages long. The last post there is from July of this year, as the case is stalled in the process of being appealed and the daily activity has slowed to a stop for now.

To answer your question directly, the weapon being loaded or unloaded is irrelevant as far as I can tell. The fact that you asked that question leads me to think you're probably in California. Is that true? If so, that's the only state that I'm aware of where open carry was legal for a time, but only if the weapon was unloaded. If you asked that question because you perceive that to be the "norm" for the rest of the country where open carry is legal, I believe you are mistaken about that. I don't think anywhere but CA has ever had such a ridiculous law.

Also, if you are in CA, it would make sense that you seemed incredulous at the notion of not having authority to question someone who was open carrying 100% legally. You said "Give me a break. Every MWAG is investigated." Well, that's not true in many legal open carry jurisdictions, unless part of the report includes brandishing or some other reckless behavior. Simple MWAG reports are routinely dismissed by dispatchers in several states, MI being one of which I am aware, but there are others too.

All of the cases arising out of someone being arrested for open carrying in this state have been the result of police chiefs and/or sheriffs who interpret the law the way they want to. Most of those guys who open carry as part of an activist movement carry a copy of the AG's opinion around with them. The guy who got convicted in the above thread was not one of those people. I believe his first post at that site was the OP of that thread a few days after his initial arrest. He was not an activist. He just relied on the AG's opinion to count for something, just like the guy in the OP in this thread relied on Oregon laws on open carry to count for something.

So I can't answer your question with a yes or no. Like I said earlier in the thread, I prefer to conceal anyway, but it does piss me off that my state or any other state can't write laws so that they can be understood well enough that citizens know when they're complying and when they're not, and cops know when they're enforcing the law correctly and when they're not. I believe Oregon's law is a state where it's not ambiguous as it is here, and as such, that's why I stand on the side of the OC'er, because I believe it's obvious the law is on his side. When the law is clearly on the law-abiding citizen's side, I don't feel it necessary to give a cop a break when he's suggesting that even following the law is not a preventative measure from having to put up with being questioned about it.

Blues
 
OC laws vary from place to place. OpenCarry.org has some info and maps that may help determine the differences. As for where the video was shot, I believe Firefighterchen gave the facts on the laws there.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top