The Open Carry Argument

usacarry.com ^ | Mainsail

[marktwain]

While this essay was written in 2009, I have not seen it on Freerepublic. I believe it deserves wider dissemination.

[cripplecreek]

Open carry is educational.

[Seaplaner]

Good essay, thanks for posting.

[HartleyMBaldwin]

Good essay. The author does leave out a factor favoring concealed carry: the risk an open carrier faces from the police.

[Standing Wolf]

Definitely a worthy read.

I carry concealed about a third of the time, indifferently concealed another third, and openly the rest. To my considerable surprise, someone notices my openly carried gun about once a year. No one's ever expressed a single word of hostility, and I've used the few questions I've encountered as educational opportunities, all of which have been well received.

I believe America would be a safer, saner, happier place if everyone saw ordinary law-abiding citizens openly and safely keeping and bearing arms on a daily basis.

[Carriage Hill]

Open v Concelated Carry article Ping.

[old curmudgeon]

Ayoob carries concealed.

[Yosemitest]

The United States Citizens KNOW that they're going to have to fight TYRANTS in their own government.
You cannot protect life, without the ability to take life.

While you are WAITING for the police to respond, someone could be losing their life.
All people of a responsible age should be armed.

As EternalVigilance reminded us:

The Second Amendment IS Pro-Life.

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these:
First, a right to life;
Secondly, to liberty;
Thirdly, to property;
together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.
These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation,
commonly called the first law of nature...
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society,
to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights;
when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution,
is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights;
the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.
If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right,
the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation.
The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty,
it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift
and voluntarily become a slave."




-- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists

Click here to read the 12 page pamphlet.

Let us NEVER FORGET THAT !

Let's subjugate them to OUR end game, DUST!
"COMPROMISE" is a DIRTY word!
People who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.


It's time to mock the "Gun Control" Zombies!
"Gun Control" is a firm grip, steady breathing, accurate aim (developed by lots of practice), and a slow trigger pull.


The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
We need to learn from the Swiss and implement their "gun control measures" here in the United States right now, today!
These laws are the ones we should shove into the "2nd Amendment Haters" faces.

" Today, military service for Swiss males is universal. At about age 20, every Swiss male goes through 118 consecutive days of recruit training in the Rekrutenschule. ...

Even before required training begins, young men and women may take optional courses with the Swiss army's M57 assault rifle.
They keep that gun at home for three months and receive six half-day training sessions.

From age 21 to 32, a Swiss man serves as a "frontline" troop in the Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year (in eight of the 12 years) to continued training.
From age 33 to 42, he serves in the Landwehr (like America's National Guard); every few years, he reports for two-week training periods.
Finally, from ages 43, to 50, he serves in the Landsturm; in this period, he only spends 13 days total in "home guard courses."

Over a soldier's career he also spends scattered days on mandatory equipment inspections and required target practice.
Thus, in a 30-year mandatory military career, a Swiss man only spends about one year in direct military service.
Following discharge from the regular army, men serve on reserve status until age 50 (55 for officers).

By the Federal Constitution of 1874, military servicemen are given their first equipment, clothing and arms.
After the first training period, conscripts must keep gun, ammunition and equipment an ihrem Wohnort ("in their homes") until the end of their term of service.

Today, enlisted men are issued M57 AUTOMATIC assault rifles and officers are given pistol.
Each reservist is issued 24 rounds of ammunition in sealed packs for emergency use.
(Contrary to Handgun Control's claim that "all ammunition must be accounted for," the emergency ammunition is the only ammo that requires accounting.)

After discharge from service, the man is given a bolt rifle free from registration or obligation.
Starting in the 1994, the government will GIVE ex-reservists assault rifles. Officers carry pistols rather than rifles and are given their pistols the end of their service.

When the government adopts a new infantry rifle, it sells the old ones to the public.

Reservists are encouraged to buy MILITARY ammunition
(7.5 and 5.6mm-5.56 mm in other countries-for rifles and 9 and 7.65 mm Luger for pistols)
which is sold AT COST by the government, for target practice .
Non-military ammunition for long-gun hunting and .22 Long Rifle (LR) ammo are not subsidised, but are subiect to NO sales controls.
Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as .38 Spl.) is registered at the time of sale.

Swiss military ammo must be registered IF bought at a private store, BUT NEED NOT BE REGISTERED IF bought at a range.
The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition.
Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed.

The army SELLS a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons.
Purchasers of these weapons require an EASILY OBTAINED cantonal license, and the weapons are registered.
In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,000 FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns.
Virtually every home has a gun.

Besides SUBSIDIZED military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms easily too.
While long guns require NO special purchase procedures, handguns are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate) issued by a cantonal authority.
A certificate is issued to every applicant over 18 who is not a criminal or mentally infirm.

There are NO restrictions on the carrying of long guns.
About half the cantons have strict permit procedures for carrying handguns, and the other half have NO rules at all.
There is NO discernible difference in the crime rate between the cantons as a result of the different policies.

Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Swiss gun lobby, semi-automatic rifles require NO PURCHASE PERMIT and are NOT registered by the government.
Thus, the ONLY long guns registered by the government are FULL AUTOMATICS."

The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
Let's adopt THEIR LAWS !

Remember:

The beauty of the Second Amendment is
that it will not be needed
until they TRY to take it.

Read Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting, IT'S ABOUT TYRANNY .

[cripplecreek]

The risk isn’t all that great and becomes even less as police become educated.

Here in Michigan we can open carry right in the state capitol with no problem.

[American in Israel]

Indications are that zimmerman was attacked to get his gun from him.

[Tijeras_Slim]

I believe it was more a case of Trayvon giving George a beatdown and once he became aware of his firearm shifting his attention to it, forcing George to use it to heep it from being taken from him and used against him.

[HartleyMBaldwin]

I do not know how the risk of being attacked by police for legally carrying a firearm compares to that of being attacked by unauthorized criminals. I do know that it has happened many times.

A lot of risks aren’t “all that great”, but are easy to avoid. I do not care to place my trust in the education of any policeman whom I do not know, nor do I consider it my business to educate police or the general public.

[mylife]

Open has its place but concealed is the best solution.

[driftdiver]

IMO the police question depends greatly on your location. The response in Chicago compared to Tuscon should be much different.

[American in Israel]

Perhaps, but his twitter posts of his fascination with guns, and the thought that he most likely knew that he was carrying make me think otherwise.

One "No limit N****" found the limit, the hard way.

[cripplecreek]

So conceal your weapon. Makes no difference to the thousands who openly carry across my state every day.

[smokingfrog]

It would be nice to have options.

FR seems to be acting up. You having any problems?

[cripplecreek]

At The last tea party rally I attended here in Michigan lots of people were openly carrying and the handful of police around were unconcerned about it.

[driftdiver]

I would rather carry openly, if it were legal here in Florida. Then I wouldn’t have to worry about keeping it concealed as I wandered through Costco.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I could argue tactics, but learned long ago that arguments over tactics never end. However, I would disagree with some of his points.

1) I am indifferent to deterrence. Deterrence only works with individuals who are mentally sound, not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and whose aggression is based on an unemotional motive. I would never assume such professionalism among armed robbers or other violent criminals.

2) I accept that it is not my choice whether to kill or not. It is based in need, not choice. If you don’t have to kill, and don’t want to kill, don’t kill. But you always must take responsibility for whatever decision you take. Not killing a violent criminal may very well mean that you are responsible for the next person *they* brutalize or kill.

3) He infers too much about criminal motives and means. Often their choice to attack is just impulse based. You were there then, so they attack you. No consideration at all to consequences. These are people who when they are caught *in the act* of committing a crime, by the police, they insist, “It wasn’t me!” This is just plain stupidity, that rates right up there with insanity, drugs and alcohol.

4) Finally, CC gives enormous tactical advantages, even if the aggressor’s gun is brandished and cocked. All told, several seconds, divided into fractions of a second. With that much adrenaline, you feel huge gaps of time in which you can act.

This is my greatest criticism of open carry. To a great extent, it seems to be based on the idea of “fairness”, such as having “a fair fight”. The heck with that.