Why does this so often seem to be the case with open carry?

[Eidolon]

For the record, if Mrs. Eidolon would let me blow a Mortgage payment on a Nighthawk it would definitely be a BBQ gun which means it would get open carried but it would not be in some cheap ass nylon. That gun would be riding in some Don Hume

 

[Firefighterchen]

it was this holster exactly

Link Removed



The Holster actually looked quite solid



Does that count the pictures where the Nighthawk Logo on the grip has been covered? It was this gun dude (or pretty damned close)Link Removed

Only one of the pictures with the logo covered was a nighthawk...

But...my guess...someone who does have a nighthawk, wouldn't carry it in a cheap holster... so the person probably just bought grips with what little money he had. I wouldn't base a firearm off of its grips, but that's just me.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Eidolon]

Only one of the pictures with the logo covered was a nighthawk...

But...my guess...someone who does have a nighthawk, wouldn't carry it in a cheap holster... so the person probably just bought grips with what little money he had. I wouldn't base a firearm off of its grips, but that's just me.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Now, that's an angle I hadn't considered.

I've already stated that I wouldn't carry a Nighthawk like that but that doesn't mean someone else wouldn't

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
How come folks don't ridicule the concealed carriers who put their expensive guns in cheap nylon holsters?

Maybe because if the gun is concealed you don't know it's in a cheap nylon holster?

Sorry... if all you wanted to do was complain about expensive guns in cheap holsters without taking a cheap shot at open carry your question would not have been:

Originally posted by Eilodon
Why does this so often seem to be the case with open carry?

Bold added by me for emphasis

I don't care if you, or anyone else, doesn't like open carry.... we all have the ability to choose which method of legal carry we want to employ. What I do care about is folks using ridicule in an attempt to diminish, demean, and demonize open carry and/or those who choose to open carry.

Don't like expensive guns in cheap holsters or can't understand why anyone would put an expensive gun in a cheap holster? That is a valid perspective... but it was absolutely unnecessary to use that as a vehicle to cast aspersions upon legally open carry.

 

[Eidolon]

Sorry... if all you wanted to do was complain about expensive guns in cheap holsters without taking a cheap shot at open carry your question would not have been:

Bold added by me for emphasis

I don't care if you, or anyone else, doesn't like open carry.... we all have the ability to choose which method of legal carry we want to employ. What I do care about is folks using ridicule in an attempt to diminish, demean, and demonize open carry and/or those who choose to open carry.

Don't like expensive guns in cheap holsters or can't understand why anyone would put an expensive gun in a cheap holster? That is a valid perspective... but it was absolutely unnecessary to use that as a vehicle to cast aspersions upon legally open carry.

Why are you guys so defensive? I never said a word against open carry , I really don’t care how you carry to be honest I don’t even care if you carry I’m going to but I couldn’t care less if you do or not.

 

[Bikenut]

Why are you guys so defensive? I never said a word against open carry , I really don’t care how you carry to be honest I don’t even care if you carry I’m going to but I couldn’t care less if you do or not.

Why am I being defensive of open carry? Because I'm tired of folks bashing open carry blatantly or by implication with a question like:

Originally posted by Eilodon
Why does this so often seem to be the case with open carry?

If you wanted to talk about expensive guns in cheap holsters... fine. But it wasn't necessary to tie in open carry with a negative connotation at all... unless you wanted to imply that not only is there something wrong with expensive guns in cheap holster but there is also something wrong with open carry too.

Now... you mentioned that with concealed carry one cannot see an expensive gun in a cheap holster yet I highly suspect there are many concealed carriers who do use a cheap holster... likely a cheap holster with no retention at all. Yet you chose to imply that open carriers "so often seem to be the case" use cheap holsters while ignoring that concealed carriers also use cheap holsters instead of addressing your main point of expensive guns in cheap holsters.

So go ahead and tell me that you didn't mean to imply that as "so often seem to be the case" open carriers are not to bright since they put expensive guns in cheap holsters right out there where everyone can see them.

Speaking for myself... yes, I am defensive of open carry.... considering all the attacks from anti gunners and even from within the gun community.... someone has to defend open carry.

 

[Eidolon]

So go ahead and tell me that you didn't mean to imply that as "so often seem to be the case" open carriers are not to bright since they put expensive guns in cheap holsters right out there where everyone can see them.

You seriously need to get laid man, any anti-open carry implication you get from my post is yours and yours alone.

 

[BluesStringer]

Why am I being defensive of open carry? Because I'm tired of folks bashing open carry blatantly or by implication with a question like:



If you wanted to talk about expensive guns in cheap holsters... fine. But it wasn't necessary to tie in open carry with a negative connotation at all... unless you wanted to imply that not only is there something wrong with expensive guns in cheap holster but there is also something wrong with open carry too.

Now... you mentioned that with concealed carry one cannot see an expensive gun in a cheap holster yet I highly suspect there are many concealed carriers who do use a cheap holster... likely a cheap holster with no retention at all. Yet you chose to imply that open carriers "so often seem to be the case" use cheap holsters while ignoring that concealed carriers also use cheap holsters instead of addressing your main point of expensive guns in cheap holsters.

So go ahead and tell me that you didn't mean to imply that as "so often seem to be the case" open carriers are not to bright since they put expensive guns in cheap holsters right out there where everyone can see them.

Speaking for myself... yes, I am defensive of open carry.... considering all the attacks from anti gunners and even from within the gun community.... someone has to defend open carry.

Certainly the title of this thread isn't the only evidence available to draw the conclusion that the OP has an axe to grind about OC. Just about any of his many "contributions" in this thread support that conclusion. For instance:

Right or wrong this is only going to end one way, one too many people is going to push the envelope and they’ll pass a law banning open carry on school property. I don’t object to open carry but I don’t think it’s the best choice every time. If you know doing it is going to cause a **** storm maybe you need to conceal. Unless of course you’re trying to stir up the ****, whichleads back to my original statement.

I think I made myself pretty clear, continue to open carry in a school and sooner or later they’ll ban it.


Knock yourself out.

<snip>

....You have no right comparing your “plight” as an open carrier (a position you chose) to theirs.

<snip>

....Like it or not the school administration is fully within their rights to lock down the school when someone shows up with a gun and if you show up know a gun knowing that’s what’s going to happen just to make a point you are at fault

I could go on, but what's the point? The guy has an axe to grind. He consistently disparages OC and/or blames OC'ers for the abuses of authority and/or hysteria by ignoramuses in the general public that we have to endure. It's right there for all to see, both in the title of this thread and in everything he's ever had to say about OC.

Dude's a provocateur. He tries to hide it, but it's hard, if not impossible, to hide what and who you are. He has no interest in provoking thought, just angst and vitriol. The end.

Blues

 

[Eidolon]

it's hard, if not impossible, to hide what and who you are. He has no interest in provoking thought, just angst and vitriol.

Blues

Oh, the irony

 

[Bikenut]

You seriously need to get laid man, any anti-open carry implication you get from my post is yours and yours alone.

You seriously need to understand that you are using the very same tactics leftist use when they think they are oh so clever in their choice of words and when called on it try to hide behind pretending that what they said isn't what they said really meant.

But what really identifies that tactic as leftist is the attempt to put the blame on me.... for the implications carried by what you said.

Edited to add:

If you follow the leftist playbook then I expect insults and ridicule as a response.

 

[BluesStringer]

Oh, the irony

Oh, the deflection.

 

[telpinaro]

You seriously need to get laid man, any anti-open carry implication you get from my post is yours and yours alone.

Not so much. Clearly several people (including me) got the anti-open carry implication when you asked "why so often ... with open carry" and then worded your question to make it sound like you thought what the open carrier was doing was stupid. Basically, your questions sounded like they included all open carriers, and implied you thought they are all doing stupid things. If this was not your intent, you could have said something along the lines of "I've seen an expensive gun in a very inexpensive holster open carried a time or two. I was wondering if anyone could offer some insight as to why someone would choose to do that."

You complain about being misunderstood a lot. Yes, text is a difficult format, but since apparently most people are missing your point and getting the wrong impression, you're going to have to look at the way you write things. I do my best to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and never take anything online personally, but I do generally get "angry, condescending and confrontational" ("you need to get laid?" seriously?) from your posts.

Believe it or not, I'm not actually accusing you of anything here. I'm not even the least bit upset or aggravated. Take it or leave it.

 

[Eidolon]

If you follow the leftist playbook then I expect insults and ridicule as a response.

Then this must be a lefist forum because insults and ridicule seem to be standard data when ever someone doesn't agree with the groupthink here

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
If you follow the leftist playbook then I expect insults and ridicule as a response.

Then this must be a lefist forum because insults and ridicule seem to be standard data when ever someone doesn't agree with the groupthink here

Is that the best response you have? An attempt to ridicule and insult the entire forum?

You expect people to believe that you used the question:

Originally posted by Eilodon
Why does this so often seem to be the case with open carry?

to bring attention to folks who carry expensive guns in cheap holsters but didn't intend to imply any negativity towards open carry or open carriers?

Words not only have meanings Sir... how they are used also carry implications of what the actual meaning was intended. Now the thing is... if it were just me who was taking you to task about this then if would be obvious that it was I who was reading too much into what you said. But then... reading the responses from some of the other folks show that it isn't just me who understood what your supposed clever choice of words was intended to convey as an implication.

I suppose it could be possible that you were unaware of what your words implied and that it was merely a Freudian slip... your true feelings about open carry influencing your choice of words. But from your defensive posture I suspect that is not the case.

Again... I don't care if you, or anyone else, likes or dislikes open carry. What I do care about is the unnecessary bashing, blatant or implied, of open carry.

By the way... what would folks think I meant if I asked this question? :

"Why does it so often seem to be the case with concealed carry?"

and then go on to complain about seeing a cheap nylon holster when some concealed carrier's shirt rode up exposing his holster as he reached for a box of Wheaties on the top shelf.

Do you really believe folks would think I'm only talking about cheap nylon holsters?

 

[BluesStringer]

By the way... what would folks think I meant if I asked this question? :

"Why does it so often seem to be the case with concealed carry?"

and then go on to complain about seeing a cheap nylon holster when some concealed carrier's shirt rode up exposing his holster as he reached for a box of Wheaties on the top shelf.

Do you really believe folks would think I'm only talking about cheap nylon holsters?

Well, yeah, but you're a committed, regular OC'er, so obviously you would have an axe to grind against CC'ers if you worded a question that way.

Oh....wait....I guess that was your point. DOH!

Blues

 

[dogshawred]

After spending a considerable amount of time reading 75 posts on this thread, I submit an idea for consideration which surprises me hasn't been broached.
~
It was suspected and offered that the carrier was using the expensive gun as bait for what ever reason.
~
I contend and offer that we have all been baited by the OP's post leading us all into realms not imagined on our own. He has been described as a provocateur and as such is offering up another wonderland of useless rhetoric. A person of this nature enjoys seeing people respond in whatever manner to his ramblings, allowing him to amuse himself at what he thinks as others frustrations and angst.
~
I understand the need to correct illogical ramblings on the forum to keep visitors from getting the wrong idea about the site and what we see as guarding our rights. I just really don't see the need of feeding people like the OP, giving them any kind of satisfaction for their efforts as a provocateur against anyone or form of carry.

 

[AndeyHall]

Really, you seem very confidant that you can NEVER lose your weapon. (You are standing in line to purchase your food. You feel 100% sure you are aware of all your surroundings, you have the intestinal fortitude, you feel confidence that you will NEVER lose your weapon and you feel that you are the best in weapons retention. 5 seconds later, out of no where a bad guy hits you over the head with a baseball bat and knocks you out. Are you still going to say you are still able to keep retention of your weapon. I bet you are going to say you would of seen him coming so let me change it a bit. Same situation but while you are in line to pay for your food a bad guy walks in and points a rocket propelled launcher at you, you are so scared that you have a heart attack, so the bad guy just walks up to you, laughs at you and he takes your weapon. My point is nothing is absolute or 100%.)

In both of your examples, said carrier is unconscious for some reason or another. Unless the gun was under a combination or keyed lock, what would any amount of retention keep said perp from getting your gun?

I open carry in a Fobus. Why? Because I carried in a Serpa for a long time and when I practiced, every now and then I'd have to retry my draw because I wouldn't get the button pushed well enough to get the gun out. In practice, that's all well and good because that's what practice is for. But I didn't want to take that chance should the draw ever carry the weight of my life. So I decided to go with a holster that only required a good yank.