In today's Urinal Star.....

[on the fritz]

Sidearms should be tasteful, and accessorize well? 

That thould be thaid with a lithp, mithter.   

[00BUCK]

Oh boy! Another thread for the 2 or 3 anti open carry people here to vehemently spew forth their holier than thou mutterings. A lucky lot we are!

[Mudinyeri]

Sidearms should be tasteful, and accessorize well? 

Absolutely!  Don't you Duracoat to match your outfit?

[66bigblock]

And this is where each previous thread about this topic has gone.



66bigblock

[JTH]

And this is where each previous thread about this topic has gone.

Okay, you could bring it back on topic by answering my question about who got cited for disturbing the peace merely for open carrying.

[Gary]

I am not anti open carry, I am anti shake the tree, to see how many apples fall off. 

If I ask someone to bring me a 3/4" combination wrench, and they bring me a pair of vice grips, I might still be able to get the job done, but the nut now looks like "Not exactly the right tool was used for the job" scratches on it.

The next time one of you open carry folks goes shopping, stop by my place of business, and take me with you.  You notice how folks interact with me, while shopping, and I will do the same for you.     You will notice no one notices me, pays me no attention.  I go about my way, with zero distraction to others.  I speak softly, not aggressive, not any mannerism to attract attention to myself.  No Mohawk haircut, no  pink hair, no tee shirt to read.  I blend in, in a store as if I am not there. 

Could I do that with a Glock 10mm on my hip?

I gave more money to NRA last year, than some people make in a year.  I not only support the 2nd amendment, I do it with my wallet.  Not just lip service.  However, what good does it do, to support the NRA, to the degree I do, if someone has a bucket truck rammed into the tree, to see how many apples fall out?

Life is a balance.  When it is out of balance, that is when things fail.  Part of the integral balance of the 2nd amendment, is the fact, the 2nd amendment folks keep their composure.

I am old enough to remember every pick up truck having a shotgun in the window, and a bolt action rifle, and the door was unlocked, and the keys were in the ignition.   

Fairmont Nebraska is a one bank town, which is also the Insurance company in that town.  The banker owned a pick up truck, parked on the main street, keys in it, and anyone in town, that needed a pick up truck to borrow, for an hour or a weekend, could help themselves to it.   That is the way life was, once upon a time.   Times change.

We no longer leave our keys in the vehicle, guns in the windows, or our homes unlocked.   We teach our kids to be leery of strangers, and we prepare for the worst, because life has far too many Ninko Jenkins types mingled amongst us.

[JTH]

I am not anti open carry, I am anti shake the tree, to see how many apples fall off. 

So, you are assuming motives on the part of other people?  Or are you taking their stated motives and exaggerating them?

If I ask someone to bring me a 3/4" combination wrench, and they bring me a pair of vice grips, I might still be able to get the job done, but the nut now looks like "Not exactly the right tool was used for the job" scratches on it.

And you are assuming that you know the "job" that other people are trying to do?  (And what a clumsy metaphor, really.)

The next time one of you open carry folks goes shopping, stop by my place of business, and take me with you.  You notice how folks interact with me, while shopping, and I will do the same for you.     You will notice no one notices me, pays me no attention.  I go about my way, with zero distraction to others.  I speak softly, not aggressive, not any mannerism to attract attention to myself.  No Mohawk haircut, no  pink hair, no tee shirt to read.  I blend in, in a store as if I am not there. 

Could I do that with a Glock 10mm on my hip?

Is that everyone's goal?  They have to blend in?  Are there other choices?  Matter of fact, aren't there a LOT of other possibilities, as opposed to your implicit assumption that people either blend or "shake the tree, to see how many apples fall off" and there are no other choices?

I gave more money to NRA last year, than some people make in a year.  I not only support the 2nd amendment, I do it with my wallet.  Not just lip service.  However, what good does it do, to support the NRA, to the degree I do, if someone has a bucket truck rammed into the tree, to see how many apples fall out?

I couldn't care less how much you donate.  And it doesn't make you any more of a fervent supporter of the 2nd amendment than anyone else.  It certainly doesn't mean that your own beliefs about how people "should" act matters more than anyone else's.

You seem to think that everyone's goals should match yours.  Perhaps, maybe, other people have different goals---and have very different ideas about how to reach those goals.

Why is it, I wonder, that you think that your methods and goals are the ones that matter?

Life is a balance.  When it is out of balance, that is when things fail.

 

Wow.  Not only irrelevant, but obviously not universally true.

  Part of the integral balance of the 2nd amendment, is the fact, the 2nd amendment folks keep their composure.

No.  That statement simply makes no logical sense.

Either people have the right to defend themselves, or they don't.  That isn't a matter of any sort of balance.

Even better, there is again your implicit assumption that if people don't carry in a way that you approve of, that means that they don't keep their composure and are a threat to the 2nd amendment.

Not only nonsense, but easily refuted by the original article:  Which again showed people open carrying without issue. 

I am old enough to remember every pick up truck having a shotgun in the window, and a bolt action rifle, and the door was unlocked, and the keys were in the ignition.   
...

Snip the rest of this completely irrelevant story, as it has no bearing on the topic at hand, in which Gary says that people open carrying are threats to the 2nd amendment because (how dare they?!) they garner more attention than he does.

[bullit]

A look behind the scenes would show that NFM’s “sudden” change on carry policy coincides with their desire to open a store in Texas.  Their advisors down South explained that sauntering into Texas as a “No Guns” business would be a death knell for a yet to be built store.

Being from the DFW area and having my family still there, Gantry nailed this one....  They would have been open less than a week.....

[NE Bull]

You will notice no one notices me, pays me no attention.  I go about my way, with zero distraction to others.  I speak softly, not aggressive, not any mannerism to attract attention to myself.  No Mohawk haircut, no  pink hair, no tee shirt to read.  I blend in, in a store as if I am not there.

And for any of you that have met Gary- that a pretty large feat.

I will say my piece and leave ya to your individual opinions. (I'll probably hurt some feelings, but that's not my intention.  Just asking that we step back and look at a few things and respect others opinions (which we tend to do a good job of, as a group)
While I normally carry concealed, I have found my CC to be less so.  I may wear a IWB holster over a tshirt and a unbuttoned button up over it. If it shows, it shows, I'm legal either way, right?  In the right environment(s). I have dabble with a little open carry now and again, but then again, I don't do so where I'm certain cause some one to "freek-out". 
 To agree with one point, and pretty much my philosophy for life- "To each their own."  You want to follow XYZ religion- so be it.   You want to drive something other than a Ford?  Fine by me, just don't wake me up in the middle of a day for a ride home. 
You want to carry your defensive Firearm in the open as opposed to concealed. More power to ya! It's what it's there for. 
BUT where I do fret and worry when I see these "Open Carry" rallies or even the Empty holsters marches and such.  Kalifornia had OC, which IIRC, became a "OC but unloaded". Well folks kept pushing the issue, Open Carry rallies abound. Now the Rebubik of Kali (or a majority of) has laws on the books effectively banning OC!  And folks- the media helped that along immensely.
And I have spoke to other about this many a time.  Do we need to educate the public- YES!  Would it be great to desensitize the public when it comes to protective firearms.  SURE.   But the question lingers with me. Can we be subtle about it.  Now I'm gonna preach about back home for a bit.  Kansas just got one heck of a comprehensive set of Pro gun laws passed this last couple years. Including OC and removing A LOT of restricted places.  I don't recall a bunch of carry rallies and such. (maybe there was, but they were never covered on the news) They did it the old fashioned way.    They put on and supported numerous training programs. They grew their numbers thru the years.  They have/ had volunteers that worked tirelessly nights/ days/ weekends to promote, train, etc. !  They worked for YEARS to get the right people in place in the Capital. They lobbied and educated their representatives and worked along side them to get this all done.   
So, to beat the horse once again; I would like to see all this energy focused on this election cycle to get the right folks in place.  Sorry, but casting your one vote just isn't going to cut it.  Find a favorite and spread their gospel.  Pick up a phone, lick some mailer stamps.  Give Andy a ring and see what you can help do. 
Jump in and help plan and put on an event.  The State Fair, the annual Member's meeting.  Set-up a coffee get together in your hometown. We'll invite some candidates.  We need funds- let's put together fundraisers.  Educational opportunities.  We can get this done. I'm sure of it. But if we could get even half as many folks that showed up for this OC gathering, to help out for a couple NFOA events/fundraiser/legislative hearings.  We would/could/ should be a force to reckon with!


(Edited: to fix spelling/grammar errors. Most likely cause by the 16-18 hour days I've been pulling. Second job that I don't really need. Helping a friend catch up and his shop. The extra money? Paying back the credit card I used to fund the NFOA booth at the Women's Expo, part of the NFOA Day at the Capital, and maybe a little ammo (that I really have no time to shoot). Gotta get it paid down, the Annual Member's meeting and possible State Fair is coming up. Gonna need transport, housing, food for a week in GI.  )

[Mudinyeri]

The next time one of you open carry folks goes shopping, stop by my place of business, and take me with you.  You notice how folks interact with me, while shopping, and I will do the same for you.     You will notice no one notices me, pays me no attention.  I go about my way, with zero distraction to others.  I speak softly, not aggressive, not any mannerism to attract attention to myself.  No Mohawk haircut, no  pink hair, no tee shirt to read.  I blend in, in a store as if I am not there. 

Could I do that with a Glock 10mm on my hip?

Yes.

I gave more money to NRA last year, than some people make in a year.  I not only support the 2nd amendment, I do it with my wallet.  Not just lip service.

So?  What have you DONE to support the 2nd Amendment?  Have risked anything to protect our rights?

I suspect, if your holier-than-thou attitude comes across the same way in real life as it does here on the forum, you've turned more people against the 2nd Amendment than you have garnered support for the 2nd Amendment. 

[AWick]

This was the thread about DTP

http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php?topic=10341.0

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[JTH]

This was the thread about DTP
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php?topic=10341.0

Ah.  Thanks!

I remember that one now.  Little bit different circumstances than open carry in a holster in public, I'll note.

I am curious as to what actually happened with respect to that case, though.  Anyone have any followup on it?

[DenmanShooter]

I was brought up to be respectful.  When we had to take a gun to town to have it worked on or whatever, we were expected to have it in a case or have the action open.  It's just courtesy. (Talking about long guns here) Because everyone knows city people are a bunch of scared little pussies and piss their pants at the sight of a loaded gun.

Pretty much no one went around with a gun on their hip but if they did, no one gave it a second thought.

But everybody, I mean everybody, had a rack in the back.

Today if someone comes into my store carrying we usually exchange notes on mfg, caliber etc.  Basically the way it is pretty much everywhere around Hastings.

LEOs who would issue a DTP simply for open carry should really look for another line of work. 

[SS_N_NE]

I think what disturbs me about this topic is that law enforcement is using tactics against a legal activity. This is simply someone trying to force their agenda on others (in legal activity)

What if law enforcement started similar tactics against firearm classes (CCW, safety, hunting, tactical....etc.)? After all, isn't that a root cause of all the firearm interest and enabling? (obvious a devil's advocate piece...for those that didn't figure it out for themselves)

DTP should have some other actionable intent than legally carrying a firearm.

[unfy]

Well... there was a court case somewhere recently that said open carry wasn't enough to warrant further investigation / etc.

Don't recall the details.

[ILoveCats]

I'm rather curious what the issue with this would be.  Or are they thinking somehow that exposed firearm will give off harmful rays and hurt the child, which wouldn't happen if it were concealed?

What's the issue?

I won't pretend to know exactly what's in the mind of the Urban Liberal Castrati who spend their days commenting on LJS articles, and I may be overestimating their thought processes; however, I assumed, from some of the comments, that they assumed it was an unsound defensive practice. The logic might be that if a guy is going into a small crowded cafe holding a baby (in a way that doesn't allow him to even see someone approaching him from his strong / carry side), and he thinks that there's a risk that someone else might come into that cafe and do something psychopathic that requires lethal force, then mightn't it be advantageous to have the gun be accessible but discreetly hidden? 

(Again, I might be overthinking what's in the mind of LJS types.)

[JTH]

I won't pretend to know exactly what's in the mind of the Urban Liberal Castrati who spend their days commenting on LJS articles, and I may be overestimating their thought processes;

Well, you said they had assumed validly, so that wording made me think you thought there was something valid in what they said. 

however, I assumed, from some of the comments, that they assumed it was an unsound defensive practice. The logic might be that if a guy is going into a small crowded cafe...

Apparently they've never been to Round The Bend which, while often crowded, is neither small nor a cafe...

...holding a baby (in a way that doesn't allow him to even see someone approaching him from his strong / carry side),

...and apparently they think that when someone takes a picture of you, that matches what you look like at all times.

...and he thinks that there's a risk that someone else might come into that cafe and do something psychopathic that requires lethal force, then mightn't it be advantageous to have the gun be accessible but discreetly hidden? 

Probably not when you have an entire group of people looking out for each other.  Tend to be able to cover a whole lot more range that way.

In addition, while I don't open carry, I will say that if I have one arm already tied up (holding a baby for example) it would certainly be lots easier and faster to draw if my gun was carried openly instead of concealed.  Concealed may be accessible, but it is still harder (and thus, slower) to get to than when carried openly, particularly when you only have one hand to work with.

(Again, I might be overthinking what's in the mind of LJS types.)

I was mostly just wondering why you thought it was valid, actually.  You did say:

Even some of the Urban Liberal Castrati commenting at the bottom of the LJS page wondered, validly, how smart it is to have your sidearm exposed while holding a baby.

Given that it was one picture of a brief moment in time, I already knew that what I'd read on the LJS page seemed to be complete nonsense.

What I most don't understand is why you thought it was an:  "purposefully-in-your-face-to-make-a-fashion/political-statement OC"

...after all, they didn't go someplace to make a scene, they had a small group meet at an eating place to simply have dinner together and meet to talk.  Yes, it got noticed, and yet the article itself even said:  "It was the baby, not the gun, that got the attention of her fellow diners.  After all, her baby was the only one in the restaurant.  The gun was just one of many."

(I will say I'm betting that was poetic license, because any time I've been to Round The Bend, there have been LOTS of kids and babies there.)

Anyway---they didn't make a huge scene, yell, scream, go someplace where it would be a potential issue, argue with people, bait police officers, etc....they carried legally and openly and had dinner in public.

Since I don't happen to think that carrying legally openly in public is automatically "in-your-face," I'm disagree with your wording there.

[Lorimor]

Again, a word of warning, the present Chief o' Police in Columbus has publicly stated (threatened?) that all OC'ers will be "detained and questioned." 

Apparently he too is wary of that "too much freedom" stuff Mdm Clinton is presently wringing her hands about.

[GreyGeek]

While I support the rights of people to enjoy their 2nd amendment, I fear, over pushing that right, in the face of others, and the face of government, could lead to my 2nd amendment rights being lowered, or removed.

Personally, while I think open carry is Constitutionally legal (I'd prefer Nebraska to be a Constitutional Carry state, like the other five that are), carrying concealed is more practical and won't get you specifically targeted by bad guys.  Bad guys carry concealed because of its advantage of surprise.  An open carry person will get a sudden surprise when a bad guy put one through his cranium at point blank range as the opening shot in his criminal activity.  The bad guy then gets the gun as an additional reward.  Law abiding citizens should avail themselves of the same right of surprise.   If a bad guy doesn't know who is and is not carrying he cannot target one unless he targets all.   If more than one is carrying concealed the bad guy is at a disadvantage.   The gun is an equalizer.   it doesn't matter how big or how many the bully or thugs are, gun trump fists and clubs.

Concerning the 2nd Amendment and your fear that open carry would lead to more infringements of the 2nd Amendment, it is obvious to me that attacks on the 2nd Amendment have nothing to do with how or why a gun is carried, and everything to do with the fact that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give citizens the opportunity (probably a SINGLE opportunity) to rebuff tyranny rising in this country at the local or national level.   We've already seen the 2nd Amendment used to put down a petty local dictator in Athens, TN in 1946.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen_press.htm

The Daily Post-Athenian, Athens, Tenn., August 21, 1946; Page 1,6.

Lincoln Said It And It Applies Now As Then

BY JOHN PECK

"The government, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln

We have seen the latter part of the above quotation exercised here in McMinn County. We now have the opportunity to see the first part of it carried out.

What Lincoln meant was just this: The government of any group of people is in the hands of the people and they must carry on an active part in maintaining their government unless they want to abide by the rule of a few unscrupulous persons who find ways and means of getting the reins of power in governmental offices. If the people as a whole do not maintain a vigilant watch over matters of government a few people, grasping for power and domination find it easy to undermine all the principles of democracy.

It has been said that the situation now prevailing in McMinn County puts its citizens in the best position of any county in the state and possibly in the nation as to the control and manipulation of its government.

We are in just that position if the people as a whole will attend the county-wide mass meetings tomorrow night and participate in the election of the representatives of their respective communities who will serve on the Board of Directors of the Good government League of McMinn County.

The people who are elected must have the knowledge that they have the backing of all the people in their community when they go to the various meetings of the Board of Directors and vote on the matters of government that come before that body.

The choice is in your hands; 1. Take an active part in your government, as is your duty and privilege as a citizen, or 2. The next time you find that your government has fallen into the hands of unscrupulous politicians just say, "It's my own fault, I had a chance to do something about it but slept through it."

It  is exactly what happened in Athens that most on the Left in this country is afraid of. 

That is why they are doing their best to infringe or destroy the 2nd Amendment.  They call the Constitution "that little book", and they ridicule and mock the Founding Fathers, even using racist tactics.  So successful are their politicians that most of the Bill of Rights has been effectively nullified.  Our Federal Agencies are arming to the teeth and creating SWAT teams armed with military grade equipment.  An apparently misguided  member of the DailyKOS posted a question asking why so many agencies have or are creating their own SWAT units:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/18/1292987/-Our-SWAT-teams#

    Dozens of federal agencies now have Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams to further an expanding definition of their missions. It’s not controversial that the Secret Service and the Bureau of Prisons have them. But what about the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? All of these have their own SWAT units and are part of a worrying trend towards the militarization of federal agencies — not to mention local police forces.

    Since 9/11, the feds have issued a plethora of homeland-security grants that encourage local police departments to buy surplus military hardware and form their own SWAT units. By 2005, at least 80 percent of towns with a population between 25,000 and 50,000 people had their own SWAT team. The number of raids conducted by local police SWAT teams has gone from 3,000 a year in the 1980s to over 50,000 a year today.

The comments to his question blamed the Right!   One wrote:

The militarization of police has always been a rightist iniative and it works against us, especially when we are out of office such as in 2002.  We are confused now because Obama is actually far to the right of most of us when it comes to law enforcement and national security policy, despite his campaign rhetoric to the contrary in 2008, and despite what Fox News might say about him. 

For example, politicalcompass.org places Obama deep in the rightist authoritarian quadrant among world leaders.

 

We have the "Constitution Free Zone" extending from our borders and our international airports 100 miles inward.  In that zone you can be stopped and search without a warrant, and interrogated as to where you were, where you are going and what your business is.  If you protest or claim your Constitutional rights you are charged with "resisting" or numerous other bogus charges and hauled to jail.  Your car and possessions can be claimed by law enforcement under the RICCO Act and even if you prove yourself innocent they have no obligation to return your property, and usually use it themselves or sell it to fund other activities.

You are worried about having your 2nd Amendment rights infringed or removed.  The situation has gone far beyond that.   You can can exercise your political rights according to your conscience (and in agreement with the president's view) one year, and several years later be punished for those views after the president has changed his views.  You can say anything you want about anything, as long as you don't mention your Christian Faith, God, Jesus, or (if you are a student in some schools) read the Bible on school property.  Read Catch Her in the Rye?  No problem.

Personally, I give our Republic ten more years.  Less if HC becomes president in 2016.

[GreyGeek]

Someone asked why I didn't include Democrat candidates in my poll about who to vote for.   Here is why, and why I give our country no more than ten years to either fully restore Constitutional rights or lose them altogether.

 Here's why:
http://youtu.be/PblVo9y735k?t=10s
That's Howard Dean, at the time DNC chairman, stating the equivalence between the Democrat Party and the Party of European Socialists.

Here is a clip showing Walter Cronkite being presented an award from the World Government Association.  Hillary gives a congratulatory video byte.

Hillary's remarks start at 15:25
In these videos the word "Justice" is code for communism.

 Pres. Obama's abuse of the Federal government by converting what were supposed to be politically neutral Federal agencies into agencies that persecute those people and groups who are not Socialist (i.e., communists) continues un-abated, and even helped by some who claim to be Republicans and/or conservatives.   Obama has lots of help.  The Congressional Progressive Caucus has 61 members, down from 88 a before Obama was elected, but enough in key positions to do plenty of damage to our Republic and prevent others from repairing or reversing their changes.   This is why restoring the 2nd Amendment  completely to its former uninfringed state is going to be very difficult if not impossible.   The Marxist in our government have and continue to transfer enough wealth from those who work to those who don't that they've created a solid base of voters, bribed with government handouts to keep them in office.  Their open borders policy  is merely a way to flood the country with more soon to be voters who will perpetually tilt all future elections to their favor.  Until such a time as freedom is destroyed and we the people are in the same situation as the peoples of Russia, China, Cuba and other Marxist countries.

Between now and the next ten years will be the most important time in the history of our country since the 1776 revolution.