Posted on 10/02/2008 9:10:00 AM PDT by nateriver
“A Sheriff revoked the concealed handgun permit of a woman who insisted on open carrying her gun to her daughter’s soccer games”. Is the Open Carry movement making matters worse for legal gun owners?
(Excerpt) Read more at regularfolksunited.com ...
Fact is, it is legal to carry a concealed Arm weapon without a permit.
Don't make the mistake of confusing weapons with arms.
Did Rosa Parks “cause trouble”?
What’s wrong with edged weapons?
If you really think you are protected by one of those little girley sticking knives go right ahead and cary one. I certainly will not object. Just do not bring it to a gun fight. LOL
One of my favorite knives is shown in the photos below.
Just do not bring it to a gun fight. LOL
I have one of the short serrated Kabars. Black handle
Because police officers wear uniforms, wear badges and use other symbols of that communicate personal dominance and the authority of the state. Most people out to buy groceries don't. Really.
Discretely carrying a firearm on your person gives you the ability to defend yourself but doesn't offend other people's sensibilities.
And using your logic, cops shouldn't carry openly for the exact same reason. Same for bank guards, soldiers on patrol, etc...
After all, if there is NO DIFFERENCE in draw time...
Don't be stupid.
Gee... thanks. Right back at ya'... :-/
I couldnt give a rats ass about other people’s sensibilities.
I was a Marine for 6 years. In the 14 years since leaving active duty, I've improved my supposedly "Expert" rated shooting skills (KD course, 5 out of 5 Expert).
I've shot 3-gun, shoot-no shoot courses, etc... and enjoyed them all.
My father is retired LEO and still runs Range Master for the County. From listening to his tales, the cops these days are in dire need of remedial firearms basic training EVERY year they are up for requal.
IOW, I'm more qualified to carry a firearm, open or concealed, then most of the law enforcement in my area.
The perceptions of the public in regards to individual firearms carrying NEED to be modified. You don't achieve that goal by hiding you firearms away like some dirty secret.
Open carry does several things.
It just makes sense...
“Go to an IDPA match and compare the concealed carriers to the open carriers. There isn’t a difference in the total times or speeds.”
Isn’t IDPA shot from concealed, i.e. the purpose of the vests?
IPSC is not concealed.
How come this thread degenerated into a debate on tactics when the editorial had nothing to do with tactics whatsoever?
I asked the same yesterday and was ignored.
Exactly. It is tactically unsound.
Seriously, open carry has several benefits. One is to encourage others. More carry of all types improves public safety. The crooks are more likely to seek other work.
Open carry is also good PR for gun owners, showing that ordinary, friendly, peaceful people carry. Sure, things would have been easier if Rosa sat in the back of the bus, but she was making a point, to change people’s way of thinking. It’s time that cops and bed-wetters stopped viewing an armed citizen as a threat to society.
Concealed carry has its advantages, too. Different ones. Both should be lawful under almost all circumstances without government permission. Let the citizen decide how and where to carry.
There is a growing number of people who believe that a right not exercised is a right lost.
And...
Unfortunately, there will never be enough gun owners willing to open carry to ever get most people used to this.
I would be willing to open carry were it decriminalized here. I know about a dozen others who would be equally as willing. Take the "and they tell two friends" thing from there.
Ie; the authors premise was wrong on a couple of points. Other's felt that open carry is "tactically unsound" and therefore should be unused if not kept illegal. Several posters felt the same as I in that in order to bring about a change in the publics attitude, more people willing to carry openly SHOULD as it is the only real way to bring this change about.
There are arguments on both sides of the "concealed/open" debate now posted on this thread. Readers can make up their own minds about what the value of open vs. concealed carry would be to them.
It disturbs people at a gathering of people who are disturbed by it, silly as they may be to feel that way. There’s nothing inherently disturbing about someone walking into a gathering and saying “The Bible is a bunch of stupid fairy tales and anyone who can’t see that is a huge sucker” — it’ll go over great at a meeting of atheists, but it’s plenty disturbing at a prayer meeting of devout Christians.
You do not have a Right to not be offended...
True maybe. But it definitely defeats the element of having to pay a fee in order to exercise a right.
Nobody has a right not to be offended, but people do have a right to organize groups and events with ground rules that prohibit offense to them. Thus the Boy Scouts have a right to exclude boys and troop leaders who are openly or detectably gay or atheist (or female!), and still not lose their right to go on organized group outings to public parks, and exclude non-members from their group activities there. And if a scout or adult leader suddenly gets up and announces he’s realized there is no God and that he’s gay, the BSA officials in charge have a right to escort that scout or leader away from the group activity and prohibit his return (in the case of a child, obviously after puting the child under the supervision of some authorized adult. The BSA certainly has a right to ask police to handle such a removal if it involves an adult who is refusing to leave when asked to.
Where, exactly, in the Second Amendment, is the means by which you are armed or carry your arms addressed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.