Open Carry Under Attack

[FifteenCents]

open carry is one thing, but most of the problems are when sheeple provoke attention, and make it worse. Like open carry in a public park in a large city, or walking down a busy highway, with a camera recording the whole thing. Come on, really? "Just exercising my constitutional rights officer" Riiiiiiight!

 

[Firefighterchen]

open carry is one thing, but most of the problems are when sheeple provoke attention, and make it worse. Like open carry in a public park in a large city, or walking down a busy highway, with a camera recording the whole thing. Come on, really? "Just exercising my constitutional rights officer" Riiiiiiight!

Is that not exercising their right?

 

[Hawkeye638]

There's an open carry, and a concealed carry section of USA CARRY??? Where? I only see Carry USA and give my input to add MY Ideas on how I carry. It was not supposed to be taken as a forcible command that takes away anyone's choices or rights, but a sharing of My viewpoints, That's all. Gee, sorry if I upset somebody with my Ideas. Under attack?...Not from Me.

If you read my post that started this thread you will see that I said nothing about taking away anyone's choices. It was about how anti-open carriers look down their nose at open carriers. I think this previous post of yours from one of those three threads I mentioned fits that theme.

Open carry when you are in a civilian position, and out of uniform, is kind of stupid anyway, I think. Because You can create a justifiable panic among the consumers of the establishment You are in just with the sight of a gun in public. especially with all the media coverage of the mass shootings that have happened lately. plus you give any robber, or unknowing police officer, a FIRST target. I would reccomend to always cc to avoid panicking the public, and removing Your element of surprise in a defensive situation.

Saying open carry is stupid is not going to change anyone's mind, it is simply trolling. Using the myth of "FIRST target" only shows that you, like the Brady campaign, will knowingly spread false information to validate your point of view.

 

[~OtisM~]

Need for attention, cause panic, waste police resources, scream 2A rights. Rinse and repeat. OC M.O.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Need for attention, cause panic, waste police resources, scream 2A rights. Rinse and repeat. OC M.O.

Says the attention seeking troll hiding behind the First Amendment to post the same ignorant and useless statement over and over again because that is the only way they can get anyone to respond to anything they have to say. Reminds me of the kid that has to wear a steak around their neck to get the dogs to play with them....

I know, I fed the troll.....deal with it

 

[Hawkeye638]

Need for attention, cause panic, waste police resources, scream 2A rights. Rinse and repeat. OC M.O.

Thank you for proving my point.

I really do not care if you like open carry or not but I ask that you respect my right to carry as I choose and do not lump me into some stereotypical image you have predetermined I must fit into so that you can feel better about yourselves. We get that enough from the Bloombergs, Bradys and the main stream media.

 

[SGB]

Anybody want to bet that the most avid anti-OC people like trollbee, I mean Shoobee, have never open carried a minute of their life except for their cap guns when they were playing cowgirls and Indians? Yet, they consider themselves to be open carry experts.

Let me explain the real world to you, Shoobee and to your minion followers:

For every negative interaction I have had regarding my openly carried firearm (most of those from the concealed carry only snobs), I have 5 or 6 positive interactions. 99% of the time there is no interaction about my gun at all. So, how can you claim that open carry in places like Seattle and SEA-TAC International Airport is "inappropriate" when the majority of comments I get are positive and supportive or inquisitive and educational and most of the negative comments come from concealed carrying self proclaimed open carry experts?

I seriously question that they own firearms.

 

[Lakeland Man]

I don't have a problem with open carry. If it's legal, go ahead and OC at walmart, McDonalds, the holy church of whatever, and walking down the street in full view of the cameras. If that's where your business takes you, so be it. The only problem I have with OC is the people who carry an AK or something like that just to draw attention to themselves, and then get into a urination contest with the police if they are stopped. What is gained by being a jerk to the cop who are doing their jobs. Of they stop you because of a MWAG call, they are duty bound to check. If they don't then they are accused of not doing their job by the non-gun carrying public. When the "caller" sees an OC'er questioned, a respectful conversation with police, and then the OC'er going on about their business, I think that does more to advance our cause than some of the jerks you see on youtube.

Please forgive me if I'm rambling. I am rushing due to time resstraints.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I don't have a problem with open carry. If it's legal, go ahead and OC at walmart, McDonalds, the holy church of whatever, and walking down the street in full view of the cameras. If that's where your business takes you, so be it. The only problem I have with OC is the people who carry an AK or something like that just to draw attention to themselves, and then get into a urination contest with the police if they are stopped. What is gained by being a jerk to the cop who are doing their jobs. Of they stop you because of a MWAG call, they are duty bound to check. If they don't then they are accused of not doing their job by the non-gun carrying public. When the "caller" sees an OC'er questioned, a respectful conversation with police, and then the OC'er going on about their business, I think that does more to advance our cause than some of the jerks you see on youtube.

Please forgive me if I'm rambling. I am rushing due to time resstraints.

In all the videos of gun rights advocates being provocative to the police, they are only reciprocating the disrespect that is so obvious from the Officers initial attitude. All of those posters have multiple videos of good encounters with police officers having respectful and courteous conversations, why? Because the officer was respectful and courteous first. When an officer starts off the conversation with, "Give me your ID," or "What are you doing out here?...exercising your rights? So you are just being difficult?", or starting the encounter with his own firearm drawn and aimed at the MWAG, what would you expect the advocate to do? Bend over?

BTW police can investigate an MWAG call by keeping a distance and watching can't they? Unless the AK is in the owners hand, and the owner is brandishing/intimidating there is no reason to start an encounter. If the officer still feels uneasy, watch him for an hour, watch him till he goes home, but don't trample his civil rights in the name of "safety."

 

[Lakeland Man]

In all the videos of gun rights advocates being provocative to the police, they are only reciprocating the disrespect that is so obvious from the Officers initial attitude. All of those posters have multiple videos of good encounters with police officers having respectful and courteous conversations, why? Because the officer was respectful and courteous first. When an officer starts off the conversation with, "Give me your ID," or "What are you doing out here?...exercising your rights? So you are just being difficult?", or starting the encounter with his own firearm drawn and aimed at the MWAG, what would you expect the advocate to do? Bend over?

BTW police can investigate an MWAG call by keeping a distance and watching can't they? Unless the AK is in the owners hand, and the owner is brandishing/intimidating there is no reason to start an encounter. If the officer still feels uneasy, watch him for an hour, watch him till he goes home, but don't trample his civil rights in the name of "safety."

I'll ask again...what is gained by getting into a pissing match with the cops? So what if he is disrespectful of an OC'er? Does that mean the OC'er hast to return the same attitude back? If you are polite and respectful, you will have better results no matter WHAT the attitude of the cop. Take the higher road. And do you really think they can just sit back and watch you for an hour or more? Do you think, with the amount of crime these days that they have that kind of time? So, let them check, close out that call and get on to the next call. You don't seem to understand that they are REQUIRED to check when there's a complaint. Stopping you to make sure everything is on the up and up is not a violation of your civil rights.

 

[Firefighterchen]

In all the videos of gun rights advocates being provocative to the police, they are only reciprocating the disrespect that is so obvious from the Officers initial attitude. All of those posters have multiple videos of good encounters with police officers having respectful and courteous conversations, why? Because the officer was respectful and courteous first. When an officer starts off the conversation with, "Give me your ID," or "What are you doing out here?...exercising your rights? So you are just being difficult?", or starting the encounter with his own firearm drawn and aimed at the MWAG, what would you expect the advocate to do? Bend over?

BTW police can investigate an MWAG call by keeping a distance and watching can't they? Unless the AK is in the owners hand, and the owner is brandishing/intimidating there is no reason to start an encounter. If the officer still feels uneasy, watch him for an hour, watch him till he goes home, but don't trample his civil rights in the name of "safety."

I'll ask again...what is gained by getting into a pissing match with the cops? So what if he is disrespectful of an OC'er? Does that mean the OC'er hast to return the same attitude back? If you are polite and respectful, you will have better results no matter WHAT the attitude of the cop. Take the higher road. And do you really think they can just sit back and watch you for an hour or more? Do you think, with the amount of crime these days that they have that kind of time? So, let them check, close out that call and get on to the next call. You don't seem to understand that they are REQUIRED to check when there's a complaint. Stopping you to make sure everything is on the up and up is not a violation of your civil rights.

Lol so give the officers a pass when they violate people's 4th amendment, but the people who stand up for their rights are getting in a pissing contest? It might be hard for you to admit, but officer's are wrong. How about they stop pissing in our direction? Respect is a two way road, they don't give us any, we shouldn't give them any.

No I don't think they have the time, but that's not the problem with someone doing nothing illegal. If the officer checks on the mwag, sees no illegal activity he is free to go to another call. If he stays, that's on him, and him alone. Place the blame on the officer if he sits there watching the grass grow while someone gets assaulted by someone who is probably concealing a handgun illegally.

If I call the police on a Muslim preaching the Koran on the sidewalk, and me being a non Muslim, do the police have to investigate the Muslim? Do they have to make contact and demand ID? Do they have to seize the Koran and pat down the Muslim?

You don't seem to understand that perfectly legal behavior doesn't warrant a stop.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You don't seem to understand that they are REQUIRED to check when there's a complaint. Stopping you to make sure everything is on the up and up is not a violation of your civil rights.

1. They are NOT required to check when there's a complaint.

2. DETAINING a person to make sure everything is on the up and up certainly is a violation of a person's civil rights absent reasonable suspicion that a crime is/has been committed.

Dial 911 and Die

OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK: Do the police owe a duty to protect you from criminal attack? In most of the United States, the answer is "no." In fact, in most cases the police do not even have to respond to your emergency 911 call.

If you are going to attempt to discuss this, Lakeland Man, at least do it with facts.

 

[Nightmare45]

Live in Texas a concealed carry state, hope this changes and we become a constitutional open carry state like AZ, when in AZ at my place I open carry everywhere, the police are well informed of the law and have had no issues what so ever. In Sedona a visitor may comment, and when explained they have no issue, if they call the police the Law is explained to them. Peace, Love, Colt 45.

 

[~OtisM~]

Guns kill people. 90% of people equate guns to violent impending death. Right or wrong, that is the publics perception. If u aren't in a uniform, and you have a gun, people will panic. If that is your goal then go ahead. If its not your goal, use your head and your discretion. Ccw.

 

[Warbirds]

Guns kill people. 90% of people equate guns to violent impending death. Right or wrong, that is the publics perception. If u aren't in a uniform, and you have a gun, people will panic. If that is your goal then go ahead. If its not your goal, use your head and your discretion. Ccw.

Penises rape people. 90% of people equate penises to violent impending rape. Right or wrong, that is the publics perception. If u aren't a male stripper, and you have a *****, people will panic. If that is your goal then go ahead. If its not your goal, use your head (lol) and your discretion. Ccw.

There I made your pathetic rant more entertaining. If you are going to make things up make it good.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[SGB]

Guns kill people. 90% of people equate guns to violent impending death. Right or wrong, that is the publics perception. If u aren't in a uniform, and you have a gun, people will panic. If that is your goal then go ahead. If its not your goal, use your head and your discretion. Ccw.

 

[Bikenut]

Guns kill people. 90% of people equate guns to violent impending death. Right or wrong, that is the publics perception. If u aren't in a uniform, and you have a gun, people will panic. If that is your goal then go ahead. If its not your goal, use your head and your discretion. Ccw.

Please provide proof with cites and/or links to verifiable scientific articles or news articles to back up your assertion that 90% of people equate guns to violent impending death. Please also provide cites and/or links to verifiable proof of your assertion that such is the public's perception.

If you cannot provide such proof then it would appear your goal is to assert your opinion as fact. If you have facts... I challenge you Sir... man up and PROVIDE PROOF!

I suspect that what we will hear from you is either insults, misdirection, deflection, or... crickets. But certainly not any factual verifiable proof your assertions have any credibility.

And guns don't always kill people but they do save people from harm or death since a study by Gary Kleck showed that guns were used in self defense 2.5 MILLION times per year. Please follow the link below to read the entire article...

Dr. Gary Kleck - The Criminologist Whose Self-Defense Research Destroyed Gun Control Arguments

Who is Dr. Gary Kleck?
The Criminologist Whose Self-Defense Research Destroyed Gun Control Arguments

-snip-
Among Kleck’s findings:

For every use of a gun to commit a crime, there are three-to-four cases of guns being used in self-defense of a crime.
Assault and robbery rates are lower when victims are armed with a gun.
A gun is used in self-defense to protect its owner from crime 2.5 million times per year, an average of once every 13 seconds.
Fifteen percent of the gun defenders interviewed believed someone would have died if they had not been armed. If true, that’s an average of one life saved due to firearm self-defense every 1.3 minutes.
In nearly 75% of the cases, the victim did not know his attackers. In nearly 50% of the cases, he faced at least two attackers and in nearly 25% of the cases, there were three or more attackers. A quarter of the incidents of self-defense occurred away from the home.
-snip-

 

[Lakeland Man]

1. They are NOT required to check when there's a complaint.

2. DETAINING a person to make sure everything is on the up and up certainly is a violation of a person's civil rights absent reasonable suspicion that a crime is/has been committed.

Dial 911 and Die



If you are going to attempt to discuss this, Lakeland Man, at least do it with facts.

I don't know which law enforcement agency YOU worked for, but in my department, when we were dispatched to a call, we were required to go. We couldn't just say "No. I don't feel like going to that one. I'll wait for the next call."

Have you ever heard of a LEO responding to a "suspicious person" call? Exactly what crime was being committed that required the police? We don't know until they respond and check it out. I've never seen a state or federal statute that makes "acting suspicious" a crime, yet they are still dispatched to those kind of calls. I equate MWAG calls the same way. LEO don't know that a crime is being committed until they check.

 

[Firefighterchen]

1. They are NOT required to check when there's a complaint.

2. DETAINING a person to make sure everything is on the up and up certainly is a violation of a person's civil rights absent reasonable suspicion that a crime is/has been committed.

Dial 911 and Die



If you are going to attempt to discuss this, Lakeland Man, at least do it with facts.

I don't know which law enforcement agency YOU worked for, but in my department, when we were dispatched to a call, we were required to go. We couldn't just say "No. I don't feel like going to that one. I'll wait for the next call."

Have you ever heard of a LEO responding to a "suspicious person" call? Exactly what crime was being committed that required the police? We don't know until they respond and check it out. I've never seen a state or federal statute that makes "acting suspicious" a crime, yet they are still dispatched to those kind of calls. I equate MWAG calls the same way. LEO don't know that a crime is being committed until they check.

On those "suspicious person" calls, did you guys stop and ID everyone in the vicinity? Say you drive by and see no one being suspicious, what do you do then? Find someone to stop?

Are you guys trying to find a crime? Or just trying to see if anyone is indeed acting suspicious?

 

[NavyLCDR]

I don't know which law enforcement agency YOU worked for, but in my department, when we were dispatched to a call, we were required to go. We couldn't just say "No. I don't feel like going to that one. I'll wait for the next call."

Have you ever heard of a LEO responding to a "suspicious person" call? Exactly what crime was being committed that required the police? We don't know until they respond and check it out. I've never seen a state or federal statute that makes "acting suspicious" a crime, yet they are still dispatched to those kind of calls. I equate MWAG calls the same way. LEO don't know that a crime is being committed until they check.

Scenario 1, 911 not obligated to respond to every complaint:
"911, what is your emergency?"
"There is a man with a gun at McDonalds!"
"Where is the gun?"
"In a thingy on his belt."
"You mean in a holster?"
"Yes, that's it, a holster."
"Is the man threatening anyone with the gun?"
"I feel threatened!"
"What exactly is the man doing? Is he having an argument with someone or handling the gun?"
"No, he's waiting in line."
"Well, you aren't describing anything that is illegal. If he actually threatens to use the gun, call us back and we can do something about it."
------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 2, officer can't detain without reasonable suspicion:
Officer gets a call that there is a man with a gun at McDonalds. Officer arrives to see a man exiting McDonalds wearing a gun in a holster on his belt.
Officer quickly exits vehicle, approaches man and says, "Can I talk to you for a minute?"
Man replies, "I would rather not, I am very busy."
Officer says, "OK. Sorry to bother you, have a nice day."
Officer watches man get in a vehicle and writes down license number.
Officer goes inside the McDonalds and sees nothing unusual, looks in the bathrooms...nothing.
Officer calls in license plate number he wrote down and nothing is returned on the registered owner.
Officer signs off the call.
--------------------------------------------------------

We, as Joe Citizens are expected to live our lives within the boundaries set forth by laws and regulations. Why is it so unreasonable to expect LEO agencies to do the same? Just like criminals will not obey laws so they must be caught breaking them and punished, some government agencies or employees will not obey the limits of their authority and must be caught violating the limits and the situation dealt with appropriately. It might be simple ignorance that can be fixed with training. It might be willful violation or negligence that deserves a civil award or criminal punishment.

I just don't think it is asking too much to expect government to stay within the boundaries of authority set forth in the Constitution. If we have to carry voice recorders or video cameras to do so....then so be it. The government sometimes records our movements on video.