More Open Carry Fun

I don't get the point of purpsosely going out looking for trouble but I support everyone's right to do so. Everyone has the right to do this but I've yet to see one of these videos where it wasn't obvious that the person was purposely looking for an LE encounter. I mean, if that's how someone wants to spend their day, who am I to tell them otherwise.
 
I love how people think that because their feelings make them butt hurt, that somehow makes it OK to restrict peoples rights.

These threads make freedom cry.
 
I don't get the point of purpsosely going out looking for trouble but I support everyone's right to do so. Everyone has the right to do this but I've yet to see one of these videos where it wasn't obvious that the person was purposely looking for an LE encounter. I mean, if that's how someone wants to spend their day, who am I to tell them otherwise.
It's certainly not my style, but the point is easy to explain and makes sense.

The point is that society as a whole has been perverted to believing that only people wearing special clothing identifying them as agents of the state can have guns in public and anyone else is a threat.

This is patently false and needs to be dispelled.
 
It's certainly not my style, but the point is easy to explain and makes sense.

The point is that society as a whole has been perverted to believing that only people wearing special clothing identifying them as agents of the state can have guns in public and anyone else is a threat.

This is patently false and needs to be dispelled.

I know, and I get that point, but I'm not entirely convinced these litte stunts accomplish that. I think it just cements in the minds of anti's that gun owners are all "nuts".
 
I know, and I get that point, but I'm not entirely convinced these litte stunts accomplish that. I think it just cements in the minds of anti's that gun owners are all "nuts".
Every time someone feels like OCing, rifle or handgun, and opt not to do so for the reasons you mentioned, the antis win a little battle.
 
By your logic, since Rosa Parks had a seat on the bus (in the back) there would be no reason to sit in the front just to rub it in their face.

Actually, that isn't even close to being the same, but good try. The equivalent would be if Rosa Parks won the right to sit in the front of the bus, and the next day after that supreme court decision, instead of sitting in the front she lay down across 2 seats just to let all the white people know that she had the right to be there, while kicking her feet muddy feet up on the seats. You as an open carry (in a legal state) gun owner already have the right to sit in the front of the bus, but if you are going to lay across two damn seats for no damn reason, someone is going to decide you shouldn't be allowed to sit up there. Don't you see that? If you don't, you are just being willfully ignorant, and then you will get to be extremely surprised and angry when such a thing comes to pass. Perhaps you like being surprised and angry, many people do.
 
They are exercising a right. Doesntmatter how they look, or if you think it's a good idea. Rights that aren't exercised will get lost, it's that simple. All the hobby libertarians who tell me that I should dress "sharp" and look professional when OCing a holstered handgun, frighten me. IMO, they already gave halfway in to the antis. Just don't do anything that might upset moms demand action, right? It doesn't matter to me if you carry a rifle or a handgun, a machete or a friggin bazooka as long as you do it in a safe manner. The antis right to feel peachy does not supercede other's rights to open carry, where allowed. It's that simple. It's just like with gay marriage. As long as your actions don't affect my life, how is it any of my business what you do, as long as it's legal?

Completely agree.
I have been asked by LEO in more than one community to "not target shoot" in an area that is well within the limits of the written law to do so.
The reasoning was, "not to further piss off those who do not like firearms, or the noise."
So although I was not breaking any kind of law, I was being asked not to exercise a "right" because it bothered/offended others.
I understand this is not an open carry situation, however, it does show how even the restrictive laws for gun owners here in MA, are over-enforced by many LEO.
Even the MA law does not specifically state open-carry is unlawful. This 'disturbing the peace' B.S. is equivalent to saying I feel threatened everytime I see a man in a headdress or a woman in a burka.
Actually, my feelings hold more water. When was the last time a firearm went and did anything on its own?
This is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The difference, individual freedoms and responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Actually, that isn't even close to being the same, but good try. The equivalent would be if Rosa Parks won the right to sit in the front of the bus, and the next day after that supreme court decision, instead of sitting in the front she lay down across 2 seats just to let all the white people know that she had the right to be there, while kicking her feet muddy feet up on the seats. You as an open carry (in a legal state) gun owner already have the right to sit in the front of the bus, but if you are going to lay across two damn seats for no damn reason, someone is going to decide you shouldn't be allowed to sit up there. Don't you see that? If you don't, you are just being willfully ignorant, and then you will get to be extremely surprised and angry when such a thing comes to pass. Perhaps you like being surprised and angry, many people do.
What is your major malfunction? When people have the right to OC a rifle, and chose to do so, how is that abusing a right? It's. Simply exercising it, that's all..
 
Every time someone feels like OCing, rifle or handgun, and opt not to do so for the reasons you mentioned, the antis win a little battle.


Not sure I agree. I could care less who carries what and how, but I'd bet more anti's rally to their stupid cause when they see people OC a rifle than are convinced that oh hey guns aren't that bad cuz look no one's getting hurt. They don't think rationally, they act on emotion.

Like i said I have no problem with OCing but I don't buy any arguments that it furthers our cause.
 
Actually, that isn't even close to being the same, but good try. The equivalent would be if Rosa Parks won the right to sit in the front of the bus, and the next day after that supreme court decision, instead of sitting in the front she lay down across 2 seats just to let all the white people know that she had the right to be there, while kicking her feet muddy feet up on the seats.
Nice strawman... (actually, it is pretty terrible to the point of trollster McTrollerston...)

No, as the OC does not consume anyone's seat, nor sully their clothing with said mud.

It only serves to offend their constructed reality, which is their problem not the OC'er's. Which is identical to the Rosa Parks example.

Don't you see that? [wink]
 
Last edited:
Like i said I have no problem with OCing but I don't buy any arguments that it furthers our cause.
"Our cause"? Not sure we are on the same page here. If the U.S. constitution was followed the way it was written, there wouldn't even be a cause. There would be no subject to debate. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". The fact that we even have this conversation is a shame. The fact that some people, who are supposedly in our corner, don't support free men bearing arms in a visible fashion, is a disgrace.
 
People that don't want to OC need to stop being afraid of those that do. So could we stop fearing our allies in this fight to maintain the right?
This.

Do not break the law in your community or do anything you are not comfortable doing, but complaining about people being too flamboyantly ammosexual puts you on the wrong side of this debate.

You are now part of the problem rather than the solution.
 
You walked through Nashua with an AR slung over your back?

I have had my Steyr Aug with a loaded 60 round Mag on me standing outside the Nashua City hall before.

Cops were cool.

Also have had a moonbat call the police on me at Walmart for loading mags for my range trip
later that day while waiting for someone to finish their shopping.

Malodave
 
Dumb people can't tell the difference between exercising a right and abusing a right. Hint: abusing a right is when you exercise a right for no logical reason, just merely to annoy/intimidate/rub it in peoples' faces. And of course, abuse of a right leads to a restriction of that right. While yelling "IT'S MAH RIIIIIGHTS" may let you carry your AK into Starbucks, there is no actual logical reason for you to do so (not a dangerous, late-night, high-crime, unlit, isolated area) nor is that the best firearm for the job (rifle in a tight indoor area full of tables and chairs, with lots of innocents and glass windows with pedestrians outside). That is dumb. And the reason it pisses me off isn't that it is dumb, because to be honest, I love it when dumb people put a sign on themselves to let me know they are dumb (convenient), it pisses me off because you are the people that PUSH stores and govts into restricting such rights. And when they end up restricting, they don't just restrict dumb people from bringing AKs and ARs, they restrict everyone from bringing everything.

So stop being dumb and stop pushing the envelope. Exercise your rights, don't abuse them, or you are just proving you aren't mature enough to have them to those who want to take them away. No one is stepping on your damn rights, in fact you are stepping on my damn rights by being a posterchild for stupidity and creating a problem where non exists. Stop causing my rights to be restricted by acting like a 5 yr old and packing a rifle to places where no one has ever needed a rifle since the 1600s (if ever), just to poke liberals in the eye. Your Target/Starbucks/whatever is not located in disputed Indian territory, and there are no bears. If you want to open carry a rifle all day, go hunting or go to freaking Afghanistan. I'm sure plenty of our soldiers would love for you to take their place.

Maybe if you call people dumb enough times, that is sure to be key to a logical, rational, and unemotional argument...[rolleyes]
 
Nice strawman...

You have to be kidding me. You brought Rosa Parks into a discussion about Open Carry, and when that went south for you, you make the strawman argument claim... But you brought the strawman Rosa Parks to the party! Freaking hilarious! Your opposition to my views basically proves everything I said in my longer post about this issue. I thank you.
 
Maybe if you call people dumb enough times, that is sure to be key to a logical, rational, and unemotional argument...[rolleyes]

I wasn't trying for unemotional. I am emotional about this issue, as I don't want my rights restricted. Recently I've watched places I frequent put out announcements that guns are not welcome, due 100% to the "efforts" of open carry groups with rifles overdoing it in those places with zero justification (no safety issue). Just because an argument is emotional does not make it any less logical/rational. Yes, I'm pissed, and yes I think this whole thing is ridiculous. I hate that now I'm not supposed to spend my money at places I liked because they are now "anti-gun" whereas before they were "who gives a damn", until some *smartie smartie super smartie* people took it on themselves to poke them in the eye repeatedly for kicks till they were forced to put out a press release about their stance.

You are right though, I shouldn't use the word dumb as much. Seriously. I switched it up above and I do feel better about it.
 
I have had my Steyr Aug with a loaded 60 round Mag on me standing outside the Nashua City hall before.

Cops were cool.

Also have had a moonbat call the police on me at Walmart for loading mags for my range trip
later that day while waiting for someone to finish their shopping.

Malodave
Oh NH, how you call to me longingly as I suffer in this stifling tomb of MA
 
I wasn't trying for unemotional. I am emotional about this issue, as I don't want my rights restricted.

Please tell me you were going for ironic.

How exactly is it the fault of someone exercising a right that other people try and restrict your rights? Isn't it the fault of the person doing or trying to do the restricting? You seem to have it backwards.
 
I wasn't trying for unemotional. I am emotional about this issue, as I don't want my rights restricted. Recently I've watched places I frequent put out announcements that guns are not welcome, due 100% to the "efforts" of open carry groups with rifles overdoing it in those places with zero justification (no safety issue).

You don't carry a rifle in any of these places, so why should you care? Further, nearly all of these places have not actually -banned- concealed firearms. (unless places like Starbucks, etc are persuing binding signage in the few states that allow it). A lot of these companies (Target, Starbucks, etc) crafted these policies in such a limp wristed fashion; that whenever someone with a brain reads it, it comes across as "we don't want people with guns in our stores.... but... we're not actually banning them". A typical concealed carrier reads that and says "Oh, this really isn't a ban, then, it's just a ban against people openly prancing around with a gun in their store. I think I can deal with that. "

Let's be honest about something here for a moment. If you called up every business or store you used, asked for a manager, and said "Hey do you guys mind if I carry a lawfully concealed firearm in your business?" What do you think the average response is going to be? [rofl] If being "allowed" bothers you that much, then you would do exactly this. But you won't.

It sounds to me like you're "manufacturing" a problem where there isn't one. The problem is you- getting bent about stuff that doesn't matter.

-Mike
 
You have to be kidding me. You brought Rosa Parks into a discussion about Open Carry, and when that went south for you, you make the strawman argument claim... But you brought the strawman Rosa Parks to the party! Freaking hilarious! Your opposition to my views basically proves everything I said in my longer post about this issue. I thank you.
Rosa parks is not a strawman, she is a powerful and directly applicable lesson to everyone who finds themselves being treated as a second class citizen.

The solution to such bigotry is to defy it. Peacefully. Without apology.

There is no straw there, only gratitude for her strength of character and hoping that more people can learn from it rather than cower in fear of other's judgment as you would have us do.

You brought in the straw with lying on seats and mud that have no parallel with OC.
 
Last edited:
Dumb people can't tell the difference between exercising a right and abusing a right. Hint: abusing a right is when you exercise a right for no logical reason, just merely to annoy/intimidate/rub it in peoples' faces. And of course, abuse of a right leads to a restriction of that right. While yelling "IT'S MAH RIIIIIGHTS" may let you carry your AK into Starbucks, there is no actual logical reason for you to do so (not a dangerous, late-night, high-crime, unlit, isolated area) nor is that the best firearm for the job (rifle in a tight indoor area full of tables and chairs, with lots of innocents and glass windows with pedestrians outside). That is dumb. And the reason it pisses me off isn't that it is dumb, because to be honest, I love it when dumb people put a sign on themselves to let me know they are dumb (convenient), it pisses me off because you are the people that PUSH stores and govts into restricting such rights. And when they end up restricting, they don't just restrict dumb people from bringing AKs and ARs, they restrict everyone from bringing everything.

So stop being dumb and stop pushing the envelope. Exercise your rights, don't abuse them, or you are just proving you aren't mature enough to have them to those who want to take them away. No one is stepping on your damn rights, in fact you are stepping on my damn rights by being a posterchild for stupidity and creating a problem where non exists. Stop causing my rights to be restricted by acting like a 5 yr old and packing a rifle to places where no one has ever needed a rifle since the 1600s (if ever), just to poke liberals in the eye. Your Target/Starbucks/whatever is not located in disputed Indian territory, and there are no bears. If you want to open carry a rifle all day, go hunting or go to freaking Afghanistan. I'm sure plenty of our soldiers would love for you to take their place.

So much fail in this post.

Exercising a right is all the logic I need to exercise the right. It's my right!

Do bad things happen only in 'bad places?' No.

"A pistol is only for fighting your way to your rifle." - popular saying by 'fighting men' because a rifle is a far superior firearm to defend yourself. Like someone pointed out, why do you think soldiers and law enforcement grab a rifle when the shit gets thick?

Rifles in enclosed places are still superior to handguns. unless you are fighting someone in a closet I would prefer to have a rifle at all times.

And people like you telling us that we have no 'logical reason' to exercise a part of our rights is EXACTLY stepping on our rights.
 
A lot of posts sound an awful lot like when politicians say "nobody is taking your guns away" only to be followed by pushing legislation doing exactly that.

If you say "I support ones right to do thing x", only to immediately follow that by an explanation of why you shouldn't do thing x and belittling and attacking people who do thing x, then you are lying. That is far different from explaining why you personally wouldn't do thing x for your own personal reasons. Too many people in this thread are doing the first and not the latter.
 
"Our cause"? Not sure we are on the same page here. If the U.S. constitution was followed the way it was written, there wouldn't even be a cause. There would be no subject to debate. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". The fact that we even have this conversation is a shame. The fact that some people, who are supposedly in our corner, don't support free men bearing arms in a visible fashion, is a disgrace.

It shouldn't be a "cause" but it is. IMO the text of the constitution is clear enough. Unfortunately those with tyrannical minds who would manipulate it and their useful idiots don't see things the way we do.

I never said I didn't support free men bearing arms either. I said the opposite. I just don't agree that it's effective in sending the message they're trying to. Antis aren't rational people who will draw the conclusion, "oh I get it now...all these people with guns are actually peaceful and no ones' getting hurt...Apparently I've been a simple imbecile my wholel life and now I see the light". AFAIC, everyone can do whatever the F they want.
 
A lot of posts sound an awful lot like when politicians say "nobody is taking your guns away" only to be followed by pushing legislation doing exactly that.

If you say "I support ones right to do thing x", only to immediately follow that by an explanation of why you shouldn't do thing x and belittling and attacking people who do thing x, then you are lying. That is far different from explaining why you personally wouldn't do thing x for your own personal reasons. Too many people in this thread are doing the first and not the latter.

No kidding! I am handing out rep like candy, but am refraining from negging anyone. I AM SHOCKED to find so many ANTI-GUN people on a GUN website! WTF PEOPLE?
 
"Our cause"? Not sure we are on the same page here. If the U.S. constitution was followed the way it was written, there wouldn't even be a cause. There would be no subject to debate. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". The fact that we even have this conversation is a shame. The fact that some people, who are supposedly in our corner, don't support free men bearing arms in a visible fashion, is a disgrace.

Ahem.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless you're OCing a socially-unacceptable piece of hardware then the state reserves the right to send JBTs to harass the shit of you before they arrest you on some trumped up, BS charge.
 
Last edited:
No kidding! I am handing out rep like candy, but am refraining from negging anyone. I AM SHOCKED to find so many ANTI-GUN people on a GUN website! WTF PEOPLE?

They're not anti-gun. There are several groups of pro-liberty-minded individuals who are trying to effectuate the best way to restore the Second Amendment and the freedom it protects, and their tactics are obviously quite different.
 
They're not anti-gun. There are several groups of pro-liberty-minded individuals who are trying to effectuate the best way to restore the Second Amendment and the freedom it protects, and their tactics are obviously quite different.

Most of the arguments the anti-gunners are using here boil down to this:

Don't exercise your free speech by saying unpopular things. Saying unpopular things will simply lead to more restrictions on things we want to say. By saying things that are unpopular you are endangering our rights to free speech!

Friggin sad if you ask me. Total logic fail on these folks.
 
Back
Top Bottom