I'm sorry but this really bothers me

[Johnny Dollar]

OK I asked in another thread what open carrying a long gun accomplishes and why exactly would you want to do that.
The first person to respond said (paraphrasing) that it’s educational and it desensitizes people and that it shows gun owners as normal folks. I didn’t necessarily agree but I was willing to concede that he had given an honest answer to my question.

But then the guy said (again paraphrasing) that the added benefit was that it pissed anti off (the pissed off part wasn’t paraphrased) antis. He then said he got off on watching the antis get all red in the face when people open carrying proved that they weren’t important ( I Didn’t understand that part entirely)

So basically when someone says you open carry (at least a long gun) to intimidate people you really can’t say that’s not true because this guy just said it is (at least for him) and I can’t get behind that no matter how hard I try. I validates everything I’ve ever heard an anti say about open carry.

 

[GlassWolf]

That's one person's view. It doesn't apply to everyone.

 

[Johnny Dollar]

That's one person's view. It doesn't apply to everyone.

Until an anti sees it and slathers it all over Huffpo then it does

 

[r1derbike]

I quit reading the Puffington Host.

 

[BC1]

Yeah, Huff post hasn't had a passing relationship with honesty in a very long time.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Paid for by the Committee to Deport Ariana Huffington.

 

[GlassWolf]

You're not going to change the mind of a rabid progressive, anyway. Stop bothering to try. If someone is going to stereotype everybody based on one person, like progressives do anyway, comparing all gun owners to taliban, al queda, and people like adam lanza and james holmes, then they are willfully ignorant, and that is their problem. Pretty much all of their propaganda on sites and pages like Brady, CSGV, MDA, and the like are false, fabricated, or just incorrect anyway. Are you sure the guy who posted that wasn't actually Shanon Watt? I wouldn't put such tactics past her ilk.

 

[unintentionalracist]

OK I asked in another thread what open carrying a long gun accomplishes and why exactly would you want to do that.
The first person to respond said (paraphrasing) that it’s educational and it desensitizes people and that it shows gun owners as normal folks. I didn’t necessarily agree but I was willing to concede that he had given an honest answer to my question.

But then the guy said (again paraphrasing) that the added benefit was that it pissed anti off (the pissed off part wasn’t paraphrased) antis. He then said he got off on watching the antis get all red in the face when people open carrying proved that they weren’t important ( I Didn’t understand that part entirely)

So basically when someone says you open carry (at least a long gun) to intimidate people you really can’t say that’s not true because this guy just said it is (at least for him) and I can’t get behind that no matter how hard I try. I validates everything I’ve ever heard an anti say about open carry.

It gets one home from hunting without commiting a crime (concealing a long gun.)

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

 

[Axeanda45]

Doesnt matter what it accomplishes or doesnt... Why do you have such a hard time understanding this concept???? Rights are just that, rights.... If someone exercises theirs, what the hell does it matter to you? (Here is a very big hint: IT SHOULDNT!!!!) Stop being butt-hurt when someone else does something you dont care for... Grow up and leave others alone UNTIL what they do actually infringes on your rights....

 

[Drzzit]

You know what really bothers Me.....All the posts made on the forum to just try to win a prize. Not saying that it's all of them, but seems like a lot more repeat threads showing up at the end of the entry period.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Did you really get so butt hurt that you couldn't uphold your anti gun perspective in this thread:

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/mich...41513-open-carry-confrontation-rest-stop.html

concerning this picture....

Back on topic. Here is some proof open carry is allowed on (and in) state property:

This is in the Michigan State Capitol. :yes4:

Originally Posted by Johnny Dollar View Post
Ok, serious question what do you get out of walking around like that? I don’t see that the gun is positioned for self defense (maybe I’m wrong) so it wouldn’t be any good for that. So why do it? What does it accomplish?

What does it accomplish? It lets ordinary people know that "we the people" have the right to bear arms and that, if they want to, they can do it too. It also counteracts all the hype and propaganda about how terrible those so called assault rifles are when people see that folks can carry them around and ... gosh... nothing bad happens!

One other positive is that it pisses off the anti gunners by showing them right there "in their faces" that they are not important enough to be in control of how the right to bear arms is exercised. Actually I kinda like this one since I find it humorous to watch an anti gunner get all red in the face and self importantly puff all up (or try to ridicule/insult on the internet) when faced with the undeniable proof... right there "in their faces".... they just are not as important as they think they are... and there are people who know just how unimportant that anti gunner really is. Kinda hurts their ego.

Tell me where I said I open carry a long gun? Tell me where I said I open carry to intimidate people? Or are you projecting your own butt hurt into the things other people say? I said....

What does it accomplish? It lets ordinary people know that "we the people" have the right to bear arms and that, if they want to, they can do it too. It also counteracts all the hype and propaganda about how terrible those so called assault rifles are when people see that folks can carry them around and ... gosh... nothing bad happens!

One other positive is that it pisses off the anti gunners by showing them right there "in their faces" that they are not important enough to be in control of how the right to bear arms is exercised. Actually I kinda like this one since I find it humorous to watch an anti gunner get all red in the face and self importantly puff all up (or try to ridicule/insult on the internet) when faced with the undeniable proof... right there "in their faces".... they just are not as important as they think they are... and there are people who know just how unimportant that anti gunner really is. Kinda hurts their ego.

So did your ego get hurt so much you had to start a whole new thread?

Is your face red and are you all puffed up?

 

[tcox4freedom]

I quit reading the Puffington Host.

Unfortunately, you almost have to read it whenever you read news articles on the internet. It seems most of the internet service providers use them as the main news source. I quit watching LSM news years ago in favor of the internet. Now the LSM is all over the net. (I just don't know where to get good quality news that you can trust anymore.)


-

 

[Drzzit]

I never look at HP

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Johnny Dollar]

Did you really get so butt hurt that you couldn't uphold your anti gun perspective in this thread:

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/mich...41513-open-carry-confrontation-rest-stop.html

concerning this picture....




Tell me where I said I open carry a long gun? Tell me where I said I open carry to intimidate people? Or are you projecting your own butt hurt into the things other people say? I said....

So did your ego get hurt so much you had to start a whole new thread?

Is your face red and are you all puffed up?

Oh, was directed at me specifically? I didn't get it and my face is always red I work out side

 

[HoJo]

If you don't like it, don't do it but don't tell others they shouldn't exercise their constitutional rights because it goes against your delicate constitution. No pun intended.

 

[BluesStringer]

Just remember folks, there is anti-2nd-Amendment agenda behind the words of Johnny Dollar. He would have government impose his views on your rights. He's not butt-hurt as much as he's pursuing his agenda. He's been about as clear as he can be about it:

I believe in the 2A in principle but believe it is obsolete....
....I would indeed make it a privilege....

Yes, I only quoted part of both of those utterances, but how many of you reading this think that anything that follows the words, "I believe...the 2A...is obsolete" matters a wit with that at the bottom line? Same for converting our rights to privileges, how many readers of this site think there's any caveat that could ameliorate the anti-2A meaning of those words?

False friends are worse than bitter enemies. Don't be fooled. If you are a 2nd Amendment and/or Constitution advocate/adherent/defender/protector, you are not dealing with a friend here.

Blues

 

[wingnut380]

Just my personal opinion, but, if you are only OC t piss someone else off, you are just looking for a fight. OR: you need some mental help. That mindset will eventually cause you trouble. And it may be trouble you can't , or don't know how to handle. Think about that. Again, just my opinion, but some one who thinks like that should get some help. In today world It does not pay to "TRY" to irritate other people, or make them nervous by open carrying, whether it be a handgun or long gun. For me, CC is the way to go. No one needs to know i'm carrying.

 

[Bikenut]

The following is not directed at any individual or groups of individuals.

CCing as a personal decision/preference is perfectly fine ... it is only when folks push their belief that everyone else should only CC or only open carry in a certain way because open carry might offend someone that we get into the realm of other people trying to use their personal opinions to control how other people exercise their rights. And that really is an anti gun pro gun control perspective.

The thing is... many folks open carry for many reasons... none of which are to intentionally offend someone. But those who see it and get offended tend to project the idea that the open carrier open carried just to offend them personally. And some of those that get offended about open carry take their own feeling that it was done on purpose and accuse any and all open carry they don't like as being done intentionally to offend everyone.

Yet those offended folks have no idea what the open carrier's intentions were... they are only aware of how much seeing open carry offended them and assume that since they are offended the open carrier must have done it on purpose just to offend them. And that is one of the things liberals do... blame other people for their own feelings. You know... that childish "You made me do it!" thing.

But... if folks always hide their rights for fear it might offend people then it won't be long before we don't need any gun control laws... the mere fear of offending people... will be enough to make people afraid to actually exercise their rights. In other words folks will allow the opinions of other people to control them.

The questions folks need to ask themselves are...

"Is it a right to carry like that? Is it legal? Am I really so important that I should expect other people to not legally exercise their rights just so they don't offend me?"

But personally, I still get a chuckle when I see some anti gunner get all red faced and puffed up just because he saw me legally openly carrying or get all butt hurt about something concerning open carry I posted on the internet.

Now kindly read that last sentence carefully... if you read my words to say that I think it is funny to see an anti gunner get all upset just because he saw me open carrying or see an anti gunner get upset on the internet about open carry ... then you read it correctly.

However... if you read into my words that I intentionally set out open carrying or I intentionally post on the internet just to offend an anti gunner ... then you are projecting your own feelings about being offended onto me just because it is you that doesn't like to see someone exercising their rights in a way you don't like.

Another thing... this wonderful country we live in has a rich History of folks intentionally making statements about their rights that offend those who think they are so important they should be able to tell everyone else which rights they can exercise and what manner of exercising them is "appropriate", "reasonable", and.. most importantly.. is "NOT acceptable".

 

[GlassWolf]

If a person thinks the second amendment to the US Constitution is obsolete, it is because he fails to understand it's purpose, and has most likely never read the Federalist papers, or just refuses to accept the true intent of the amendment, which was to guarantee that the public at large would always be on equally armed footing with the government to prevent a tyranny of oppressive control, much like we're already seeing now. If you are stripped of your ability to defend your rights, then what rights do you really have?

 

[Bikenut]

If a person thinks the second amendment to the US Constitution is obsolete, it is because he fails to understand it's purpose, and has most likely never read the Federalist papers, or just refuses to accept the true intent of the amendment, which was to guarantee that the public at large would always be on equally armed footing with the government to prevent a tyranny of oppressive control, much like we're already seeing now. If you are stripped of your ability to defend your rights, then what rights do you really have?

There are many people, a great many are not even in the government, who think they are so special they should have the power to tell other people what rights should be "allowed" and what rights should NOT be "allowed". There are some who post on USACarry too....

 

[GlassWolf]

those people are called "progressives" and typically believe they have the right to control every aspect of everybody else's lives, while their own rules do not apply to themselves.

A new theory of liberalism | Power Line