I just read your post for free. It cost me nothing. Some times you just don't get it. Not even when it comes from your own finger tips and keyboard.
Why we don't need liberals ideas
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
To most people they are neither intimidating nor oppressive. Considering the armed and dangerous criminals that have been allowed on the streets by our judicial system, I can't imagine an officer being required to deal with this human debris without having deadly force available.
So do I - but not everywhere I go. There are times I leave it in the car, like when I go to the library or to a nice restaurant. Discretion is the key; when I was in a truck or van I ALWAYS carried and it wasn't just the little pocket 9mm or .380.
Fact is, the govt is holding all the cards right now. Finesse will work better than brute force and it's probably not a good idea for people to be discussing anything online about their weapons. It's not the cops that are oppressive - it's the NSA computer nerds in some bunker near DC monitoring our online conversations - maybe even this one.
Last edited:
I have nothing against guns and am fine with concealed carry. I believe open carry is going too far. Rlent posted a picture of a woman with two kids in her arms and a rifle slung over her shoulder. Maybe it was one kid with real wide hips and two different shoes. Anyway, how difficult would it be for someone (bad person) to cut the sling and have access to her rifle?
Why carry a long gun into a restaurant? The thing is cumbersome and when you are seated where does the gun go, propped up against the table or on the floor? Easy pickins for some nasty person.
Even a holstered pistol can easily be removed before the bearer can prevent it. In my opinion there is no need for open carry in public.
Why carry a long gun into a restaurant? The thing is cumbersome and when you are seated where does the gun go, propped up against the table or on the floor? Easy pickins for some nasty person.
Even a holstered pistol can easily be removed before the bearer can prevent it. In my opinion there is no need for open carry in public.
There are certain parts of Detroit, Memphis, LA, Atlanta, New Orleans - pick your major metro area - that open carry of all types of firearms has been common for years. Just for argument's sake, that situation should also be addressed by the media since it's mostly criminals in those areas that openly carry the guns.
"People also just scare far too easy"
That caused my drink to end up all over the laptop, lol.
From the guy who carries, because there is violent crime everywhere, all the time, and it's not even safe to walk around in broad daylight these days, right? Crime is everywhere, all the time, and we need to be vigilant [and armed]!!!
Except I don't carry, and I walk everywhere, daylight or dark, in some pretty 'dangerous' places, and I've never been a victim of crime. Aside from common sense, I don't worry about it much, either - and I'm a 5'2" female.
So, who scares too easy?
Somehow admitting the former seems to negate the latter.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I think it's called "projection" ...
For some, everywhere they look, most or all they can see is a very dangerous environment ... danger, danger everywhere ...
Being terrorized and living in constant fear probably explains some of the chatter and gum flapping that goes on ...
The fact of the matter is that we live in a relatively civilized society, which, for the most part, is fairly safe ...Except I don't carry, and I walk everywhere, daylight or dark, in some pretty 'dangerous' places, and I've never been a victim of crime. Aside from common sense, I don't worry about it much, either - and I'm a 5'2" female. So, who scares too easy?
That's not to say that there aren't some very, very bad people out there ... most often (but not always) in places that can be characterized or defined rather easily.
The most effective weapon one can have against being victimized is a high degree of awareness of one's immediate environment and what's in it at any given point in time ...
I think it's called "projection" ...
For some, everywhere they look, most or all they can see is a very dangerous environment ... danger, danger everywhere ...
Being terrorized and living in constant fear probably explains some of the chatter and gum flapping that goes on ...
The fact of the matter is that we live in a relatively civilized society, which, for the most part, is fairly safe ...
That's not to say that there aren't some very, very bad people out there ... most often (but not always) in places that can be characterized or defined rather easily.
The most effective weapon one can have against being victimized is a high degree of awareness of one's immediate environment and what's in it at any given point in time ...
I feel for people who live in a world of conspiracy and over thought danger......yes it can be a bit dangerous out there...but I am not going to dwell on it.....In all my life the only time I've had a weapon pointed at me was on a military base....go figure....
The RIGHT of the People to Keep (own) and Bear (carry) arms, shall NOT be INFRINGED.
That sentence does not restrict the right to carry arms to concealed handguns.
All of the "demonstrations", "civil actions", what ever you want to call them, are being forced by the actions of an increasingly oppressive Federal Government. In many states, such as California, there is no doubt that there is a push either outlaw or greatly restrict the LEGAL ownership of firearms and the ability to carry them.
It is not ONLY the ownership and carrying of firearms that is under attack. The Second Amendment states "arms", it does not specify, what arms are. Knives, and the right to carry them is equally under attack. There is now an organization, similar to the NRA, that is fighting to protect that right. It is called "Knife Rights". Knife Rights - Home
In this country there is little, if any, need to carry, open or concealed, any long gun. Up until the VERY recent past, it was not done. The current trend of "protests" is in direct response to government actions that are solely designed to restrict, or outlaw, the right of arms ownership and to negate the absolute right of self defense. It is the goal of the government to make as many people as possible dependent on the government. Dependent people are easily controlled.
This means of population control is not new in history. The royal families of Europe, England, etc, used control of arms to help eliminate or reduce the chance of opposition. These practices have continued, and are being expanded, here, in the United States, under the guise of "controlling gun" crime, although IF they were being used to control "gun crime" the measures being put forward, often in direct contradiction of the Constitution, are aimed only at restricted the ownership and carrying of arms, regardless of type, by law abiding citizen.
Most, if not all, of these demonstrations would end, IF, the government ceased it's attempts to outlaw or restrict arms ownership and the right of self defense, and instead focused on controlling criminals and criminal activity.
The main causes of such crime also need to be addressed, most of which were either caused by, or made worse by, government actions, primarily at the federal level.
That sentence does not restrict the right to carry arms to concealed handguns.
All of the "demonstrations", "civil actions", what ever you want to call them, are being forced by the actions of an increasingly oppressive Federal Government. In many states, such as California, there is no doubt that there is a push either outlaw or greatly restrict the LEGAL ownership of firearms and the ability to carry them.
It is not ONLY the ownership and carrying of firearms that is under attack. The Second Amendment states "arms", it does not specify, what arms are. Knives, and the right to carry them is equally under attack. There is now an organization, similar to the NRA, that is fighting to protect that right. It is called "Knife Rights". Knife Rights - Home
In this country there is little, if any, need to carry, open or concealed, any long gun. Up until the VERY recent past, it was not done. The current trend of "protests" is in direct response to government actions that are solely designed to restrict, or outlaw, the right of arms ownership and to negate the absolute right of self defense. It is the goal of the government to make as many people as possible dependent on the government. Dependent people are easily controlled.
This means of population control is not new in history. The royal families of Europe, England, etc, used control of arms to help eliminate or reduce the chance of opposition. These practices have continued, and are being expanded, here, in the United States, under the guise of "controlling gun" crime, although IF they were being used to control "gun crime" the measures being put forward, often in direct contradiction of the Constitution, are aimed only at restricted the ownership and carrying of arms, regardless of type, by law abiding citizen.
Most, if not all, of these demonstrations would end, IF, the government ceased it's attempts to outlaw or restrict arms ownership and the right of self defense, and instead focused on controlling criminals and criminal activity.
The main causes of such crime also need to be addressed, most of which were either caused by, or made worse by, government actions, primarily at the federal level.
Why would one assume that if a person was to walk into a McDonald's with a pump shotgun, or any other long gun for that matter, that they were a ruffian?
What difference, other than people don't like seeing them, is there between carrying concealed or open? If one carries a concealed handgun are they a "ruffian" or does concealing negate the idea of ruffian? In that case, if a time loser, conceals his stolen handgun, and walks into a store, is that loser a ruffian? Maybe he would only be a ruffian if he did not conceal it. That would make sense.
Just a couple of other things along this line of thought:
(1) From a practical standpoint, carrying long guns of any type - even smaller carbines - is inconvenient to say the least, but especially so in crowded public places. If these nutty characters want to carry openly in a protest march that's one thing; but other than the woods during hunting season, a gun range or a battlefield, there aren't many other places that are appropriate for having a shotgun or rifle on your shoulder.
(2) Personally, I also question the competence and expertise of these characters when it comes to gun safety and handling these weapons. I'll bet a high percentage of these people have zero formal training in gun safety or how to effectively operate the weapon they're carrying - especially these newer tactical rifles that are so popular now among the Navy Seal wannabes. Just wait until one of these clowns has an accidental discharge in a crowded store or restaurant full of kids; the gun control fanatics get exactly what they need to pass their restrictive legislation and open carry rights of any kind will be gone for good.
What is the difference between a "modern tactical" rifle and any other semi-automatic rifle? I am not quite sure what you even mean by a "modern tactical" rifle, since the basic design for all semi-auto firearms is well over 100 years old, AND, the basic design for the "AR" style rifles dates back to the late 1950's and that platform still uses the same basic design that is over 100 years old.
It is obvious that there is a VERY large percentage of the American people that have no clue, or very little understanding of firearms, modern or otherwise.
I would also be that the vast majority of people who start driving automobiles have very little if any, formal training, in the safe operation of a modern automobile. I would even be willing to be that, on a percentage basis, those who own firearms are likely to have more training in the basic handling and safety, of firearms than most who start driving.
As to "Nuts" with guns, there seems to be no problem with "nuts with cars".
It is obvious that there is a VERY large percentage of the American people that have no clue, or very little understanding of firearms, modern or otherwise.
I would also be that the vast majority of people who start driving automobiles have very little if any, formal training, in the safe operation of a modern automobile. I would even be willing to be that, on a percentage basis, those who own firearms are likely to have more training in the basic handling and safety, of firearms than most who start driving.
As to "Nuts" with guns, there seems to be no problem with "nuts with cars".
"Modern" Tactical Semi-Automatic Rifle:
Ruger® Mini-14® Tactical Rifle Autoloading Rifle Model 5846
As opposed to the "traditional" semi-automatic:
Ruger® Mini-14® Ranch Rifle Autoloading Rifle Models
Of course you, I and a few others on this site realize these are two pictures of the SAME RIFLE - the Ruger Mini-14. The one on top is just looks so much more badass, and is the style most everyone wants now. I guess the AR design started gaining commercial popularity in the late 1960s when the Army brought out the M-16 to replace the M-14.
Sorry, but I've got to disagree with you on that one. Anyone that's old enough and can pass a background check can legally purchase a firearm, buy ammo and go start shooting. A prime example of this is the nutty little slimeball that recently shot those people in CA. On the other hand, in order to legally drive a car you have to be able to pass a test to obtain a driver's license, and there are still a lot of high schools that have driver's ed classes (BTW, try getting a firearm safety class added to your local high school's curriculum).
The reason I thought of the Mini-14 shown above is because I saw a guy take delivery on one of these the other day while I was at the indoor range I frequent several times a week. He didn't have a clue how to even load the weapon or what type of ammo to use. The guy behind the counter offered to sell him a box of ammo and give him a quick orientation on the rifle, but Mr. Seal Team 6 turned him down because he was "in a hurry." No doubt one of his redneck buddies was waiting to show him all he needs to know. I'll bet that to this day he doesn't even have a cleaning kit. Just speculating, but I'll bet there are a lot of people like him in Open Carry Texas.
In light of the above quote I hereby change my stance on "open carry". Not only am I supporting "open carry", I'm like totally embracing it. I will no longer fear being crushed by a roll-away 18 wheeler whilst dining at a dangerous truck stop. I am prepared and will openly carry anywhere I damwell please. You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me?
.
The "AR" style rifle started gaining popularity the same way every other "sporting rifle" started gaining popularity. As more and more used them in the military, more and more were used to them, so more and more bought them. MANY of the same BS arguments used to "bad mouth" the "AR" were used at one time to "bad mouth" the breech loading rifle, the lever action, the pump action, the bolt action rifles, which were all "modern military style assault rifles" before they were sporting rifles.
Yes, many do by firearms without the proper training. Statistics show, how ever, that there are now fewer firearms accidents today, than ever before, by a very wide margin. This drop in accidents cannot be contributed to new laws, but can be primarily contributed to safety training and awareness programs like the "Eddie Eagle" program from the NRA, the CMP, shooting sport programs like the 4H and numerous other shooting sports programs conducted on a nation wide basis.
The guy who picked up the mini-14 just as easily could be headed to work and has been handling firearms his entire life. You have no idea.
I also don't agree that everyone, or even most, buy the "AR" style over the "traditional style" because they look more "badass". I would be more inclined to believe they buy the "AR" style because they are easier to fix, customize, and lend themselves to providing different calibers, for different uses, at a much lower cost than buying multiple rifles.
I bet there are STILL fools out there that believe that the "AR" in rifle is short for "assault rilfe". (I know you know better)
Yes, many do by firearms without the proper training. Statistics show, how ever, that there are now fewer firearms accidents today, than ever before, by a very wide margin. This drop in accidents cannot be contributed to new laws, but can be primarily contributed to safety training and awareness programs like the "Eddie Eagle" program from the NRA, the CMP, shooting sport programs like the 4H and numerous other shooting sports programs conducted on a nation wide basis.
The guy who picked up the mini-14 just as easily could be headed to work and has been handling firearms his entire life. You have no idea.
I also don't agree that everyone, or even most, buy the "AR" style over the "traditional style" because they look more "badass". I would be more inclined to believe they buy the "AR" style because they are easier to fix, customize, and lend themselves to providing different calibers, for different uses, at a much lower cost than buying multiple rifles.
I bet there are STILL fools out there that believe that the "AR" in rifle is short for "assault rilfe". (I know you know better)