NFOA MEMBERS FORUM

General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: bullit on May 07, 2014, 11:13:03 AM

Title: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: bullit on May 07, 2014, 11:13:03 AM
http://journalstar.com/news/local/group-wears-guns-to-promote-open-carry/article_d2dd3e42-107c-5af9-b9f0-fae2d0f79587.html (http://journalstar.com/news/local/group-wears-guns-to-promote-open-carry/article_d2dd3e42-107c-5af9-b9f0-fae2d0f79587.html)

Words escape me.... particularly regarding Chief Peschong .....
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: ILoveCats on May 07, 2014, 01:41:57 PM
Wow!

"There are no restrictions on open-carry in Lincoln; however, Police Chief Jim Peschong warned that openly carrying a gun could result in a citation for disturbing the peace, punishable by up to three months in jail and a fine of $150.

He said shootings like those at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012 and at Virginia Tech in 2007 have left many people fearful of firearms. If the sight of a gun causes hysterics, and someone is willing to testify in court, police could issue a ticket, although officers might try to first resolve the situation by talking with the gun owner."


The standard for what is criminal is whether it drives someone else into a conniption fit of hysterics??  If that's the case I may be breaking the law just by entering the same room as my mother-in-law.

Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: unfy on May 07, 2014, 02:20:24 PM
Uhm.

Really ?

I guess a white guy shouldn't walk down a black neighborhood (or vice versa) - they're disturbing the peace.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: bkoenig on May 07, 2014, 03:23:02 PM
I bet the SAF would love to take that case.
Title: Re: In today's Journal Star.....
Post by: Gary on May 07, 2014, 04:12:24 PM
A kitchen swinging door, stays in the center, because there is equal pressure on both sides.

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.

Case in point, Starbucks.   Across the board policy changed for everyone, because a few, "in everyone's faces" folks, made a big deal about their rights.  Ruined it for everyone. 

Another case in point, Nebraska Furniture Mart.   They opened up their gun policy to be less restrictive, because as a company, they had no problems with gun owners over a long period of time.  Do you suppose if a open carry march would have ascended on their stores a few years ago, we would all be able to Concealed Carry in NFM today?  I doubt it. 

In the winter time, I grant sanctuary to a few bugs here and there.  I just push them aside, and tell them to hide from my wife, the bug smasher.  In the spring, if I see a bug, I turn it loose outside.   Now if a bug is bothering my space, in a assault mode, I revert to my wife's policy on bugs.  The ones that stay out of my way, I'll do the same for them.  I see carrying a gun, in that same light.  I keep my business, my business, and others do not need to know my business. 

(I corrected your typo.  I know you would not want to do that to discredit that newspaper, or yourself)



 
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Chris C on May 07, 2014, 04:41:39 PM
Looks like all the Omaha non resident complainers of how bad it is here have a new target!  HAHA
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Chris C on May 07, 2014, 04:45:42 PM
He said shootings like those at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012 and at Virginia Tech in 2007 have left many people fearful of firearms. If the sight of a gun causes hysterics, and someone is willing to testify in court, police could issue a ticket, although officers might try to first resolve the situation by talking with the gun owner.

Sounds like he's a fan of Holders.  HE SAID IT! Eric Holder - We must BRAINWASH People About Guns! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIcSLhGvaTE#)
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: unfy on May 07, 2014, 05:21:31 PM
A kitchen swinging door, stays in the center, because there is equal pressure on both sides.

This may be, but that is a far cry from the Police Chief making blatantly obvious threats of kidnapping and theft against law abiding citizens.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Mudinyeri on May 07, 2014, 05:32:38 PM
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.

Good thing our Forefathers didn't think that way.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: 66bigblock on May 07, 2014, 09:31:19 PM
This is exactly why I was suprised to hear many of you encouraging ms. michaela (sp?) and several others to open carry in Lincoln in the past here on this forum.  I believe one of our own members was also charged last year and it was discussed on this forum. 

In the past I  brought this topic up and was poopooed that this is America, 2nd amend right blah blah blah and you can open carry all you want in Lincoln.  I do know that it has been the policy of LPD for many years (to the beginning of the Tom assady admin) or longer to issue for disturb the peace for open carry.  No disrespect to anyone, but it is interesting to me that this is new news to so many of you. 

Im glad that the new chiefs policy has been aired openly to us, and now we can decide if this is an issue that the NFOA wants to challenge.

66bigblock


 
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: unfy on May 07, 2014, 09:53:45 PM
I believe one of our own members was also charged last year and it was discussed on this forum. 

I don't particularly recall this being discussed ? Been a bumpy year though.

As far as the notion of OC = immediate DtP citation ? If I'm OC'ing a polite / respectful way and get a citation out of the blue simply for having a weapon on my hip, then yes, I would raise holy hell over the matter.

It's a very sad day when law abiding citizens are outright threatened by police officers based on a whim.

IE:

If I'm buying groceries and an officer cites me out of the blue then, yeah. I'd be pissed. As in there is no way they could ignore me pissed.

If I'm buying groceries and am asked to leave and refuse to do so - an officer showing up and issuing a DtP at least has some air of validity (discussion of which is beside the point for this comment - refusing to leave when ya have a firearm on your hip could be considered coercion etc).


Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Gary on May 08, 2014, 12:16:24 AM
My support of the Second Amendment, goes farter than anyone I know.  I give liberally to the NRA, have for years.  I give to GOA, and about a half dozen other groups.  I give free guns safety classes. 
Good thing our Forefathers didn't think that way.


There is a difference between blowing your nose, because it needs blowing, and doing so in a discrete manor, and blowing your nose, in a disorderly manor, and everyone wonders where all the snot is going, as it flies around the room. 

I see hundreds of you tube videos, show disrespectful morons trying to get attention, and then hoping for a confrontation with law enforcement over 2nd amendment. 

I am 57, and I have never once gotten into a clash with an officer of the law, and I have carried for 30 plus years.     If I changed my attitude, downward, I could manage to get into mischief long before noon tomorrow.

It just depends what your goals are.  If ones goal is to disrupt, and cause a scene, that can be done.  If one wants to walk like a Asian priest on rice paper, no one will ever know. 

A famous person once remarked (Zig Ziggler) if you jump off a building, you do not break the law of gravity, you confirm it.    I do not wish to break, or confirm the 2nd amendment, I wish to quietly bask in it, for my own enjoyment, and protection.   I don't joyfully and openly show my love for it, I quietly go about my business, and enjoy my rights as an American. 

If I were going to try open carry, it might be under this idea.

http://youtu.be/aF6ROEd_lk8 (http://youtu.be/aF6ROEd_lk8)
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Mudinyeri on May 08, 2014, 07:58:30 AM
My support of the Second Amendment, goes farter than anyone I know.  I give liberally to the NRA, have for years.  I give to GOA, and about a half dozen other groups.  I give free guns safety classes. 
There is a difference between blowing your nose, because it needs blowing, and doing so in a discrete manor, and blowing your nose, in a disorderly manor, and everyone wonders where all the snot is going, as it flies around the room. 

Perhaps you need to widen your circle of 2nd Amendment friends.  I know that neither you nor I are the only ones giving "liberally" to the NRA, GOA, SAF, NFOA and a number of other 2nd Amendment-friendly groups.  I also know that actions speak louder than dollars and that there are a good number of NFOA members who donate dozens or hundreds of hours of their time each year in support of the 2nd Amendment.  You're definitely not alone in contributing a significant amount of money and time in support of the 2nd Amendment.

I get what you're saying about being discreet.  There's a time for being discreet and there's a time for pushing the issue.  If the colonists had remained discreet, we might well still be a colony of England.

"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:"
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: tstuart34 on May 08, 2014, 08:35:41 AM
http://journalstar.com/news/local/group-wears-guns-to-promote-open-carry/article_d2dd3e42-107c-5af9-b9f0-fae2d0f79587.html (http://journalstar.com/news/local/group-wears-guns-to-promote-open-carry/article_d2dd3e42-107c-5af9-b9f0-fae2d0f79587.html)

Words escape me.... particularly regarding Chief Peschong .....
'

I am not surprised what so ever about Peschong reply. He gave me the same BS answer when I asked him why he wouldn't sign NFA forms. He is hiding behind Sandyhook and mass shooting as a way to make him look like he is trying to make the world a safer place.

How a man in his line of work can make such a long career for himself is beyond me.... But I am learning in my life that the back door political brown nosers are the ones that always make it to the top...
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: ILoveCats on May 08, 2014, 08:43:14 AM
There is a difference between blowing your nose, because it needs blowing, and doing so in a discrete manor, and blowing your nose, in a disorderly manor, and everyone wonders where all the snot is going, as it flies around the room.

...

If one wants to walk like a Asian priest on rice paper, no one will ever know.

Holy cow! I come here for the RKBA discussions, but stay for the metaphors and similes.

I have to say, I continue to lean slightly in your direction on this one, Gary. I'm upset at the idea that purposefully-in-your-face-to-make-a-fashion/political-statement OC would be deemed illegal, but I'm also a bit disappointed that people would put fashion over "tactical" (I hate that now-trite word) soundness. 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.

Another person posted a question about a Jeff Cooper citation last night and I was looking through my Coper books. In To Ride, Shoot Straight, And Speak The Truth, he postulates that a sidearm is always your "Plan B".  I'm still not convinced that it's wise to walk around announcing to the world, HEY, WORLD... HERE'S MY PLAN B! AIN'T I COOL!?!   It's like driving around with a bumper sticker announcing you have a million dollar liability umbrella policy.

To be clear... NOT saying OC should be illegal, ever. Just saying it's incumbent upon firearm owners to be the standard bearers of common sense, and "purpose".
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: JTH on May 08, 2014, 09:32:36 AM
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.

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?


Gary said: 
Quote
My support of the Second Amendment, goes farter than anyone I know.  I give liberally to the NRA, have for years.  I give to GOA, and about a half dozen other groups.  I give free guns safety classes.

I'm thinking that your statement ended up being more hilarious than you might have meant. 

I also think that attempting to set yourself up as better in some way due to your "support" is a poor idea, as it has nothing to do with whether or not your thinking is logical or correct, and it may even be based on incorrect statements as I'm pretty sure that in this forum there are plenty of people who support the 2nd amendment just as much as you do, and in some cases, for much longer. 

Gary also said, in his usual metaphoric fashion: 
Quote
There is a difference between blowing your nose, because it needs blowing, and doing so in a discrete manor, and blowing your nose, in a disorderly manor, and everyone wonders where all the snot is going, as it flies around the room. 

Amazing how somehow that is supposed to relate to a group of people who met in a eating place for a quiet dinner together while open carrying, where there were no issues at all, including with other diners.  The article even had to ask someone (who wasn't there) from a specific anti-gun group to make up a negative statement about a possible issue that never actually occurred, just to get something to argue about.

In other words---the metaphor fails.  It is legal to open carry.  People who behave like normal people while open carrying don't cause problems.  Evidence:  this article, in which there were no problems. 

If someone wants to be "in people's faces" about open carry, the problem is their attitude, not the open carry part.  Yes, that reflects on us all---but the problem isn't the open carrying, so all this absolute CRAP about "being discreet" is just that---crap. 

I agree that indeed making a loud scene to provoke a response is not what will make the best impression, and will actually be detrimental to the 2nd amendment cause.  However, making that to mean "so no one should open carry, and we should criticize the people who do because they aren't being discreet" is absolute nonsense.

Open carry is legal.  A group of people did so in a polite fashion without incident.  People who weren't even there who can't come up with any coherent logical reasons had issues with it----but when do we listen to idiots?  And most importantly, when did we start making our choices based on the opinions of idiots?

I don't happen to open carry.  Not a personal choice I would make.  Yet that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not people CAN or SHOULD open carry if they want to.

I believe one of our own members was also charged last year and it was discussed on this forum. 

I don't recall this.  Who was charged with disturbing the peace for open carrying legally?  What thread discussed that?

And what happened with it?  (Because I'm pretty sure if the citation for disturbing the peace merely for open carrying went to court, not only would it fail, but it would have made big news.)


...to sum up:  If you don't like open carry, then don't do it.  But if other people do it in a legal fashion, AND you actually support the 2nd amendment (as opposed to the aspects you like of the 2nd amendment, or the manner of the 2nd amendment that you feel is proper), then perhaps you should support them, and keep mentioning to people that not only was it not an issue, but that the media had to actually to go to someone who wasn't even there who made up an non-existent event to find an issue to argue.

In other words---perhaps you should support the people who open carry legally in a fashion that also supports the 2nd amendment.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Gantry on May 08, 2014, 09:36:03 AM
Another case in point, Nebraska Furniture Mart.   They opened up their gun policy to be less restrictive, because as a company, they had no problems with gun owners over a long period of time.

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.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Mudinyeri on May 08, 2014, 10:56:21 AM
In other words---perhaps you should support the people who open carry legally in a fashion that also supports the 2nd amendment.

Maybe it really is all about fashion.  As long as your firearm doesn't clash with your outfit, it's OK to carry openly.  Otherwise, conceal that hog leg so I don't have to see your fashion faux pas.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Mudinyeri on May 08, 2014, 10:59:55 AM
I'm still not convinced that it's wise to walk around announcing to the world, HEY, WORLD... HERE'S MY PLAN B! AIN'T I COOL!?!  

When I open carry, it has nothing to do with being cool ... or fashion.

In the "for what it's worth" category, I've been "contacted" by (small town) law enforcement while open carrying with no negative results. 
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: JTH on May 08, 2014, 11:14:31 AM
Maybe it really is all about fashion.  As long as your firearm doesn't clash with your outfit, it's OK to carry openly.  Otherwise, conceal that hog leg so I don't have to see your fashion faux pas.

Sidearms should be tasteful, and accessorize well?  :)
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: on the fritz on May 08, 2014, 12:24:55 PM
Sidearms should be tasteful, and accessorize well?  :)


That thould be thaid with a lithp, mithter.  ;)  :)
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: 00BUCK on May 08, 2014, 12:31:38 PM
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!
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Mudinyeri on May 08, 2014, 01:35:54 PM
Sidearms should be tasteful, and accessorize well?  :)


Absolutely!  Don't you Duracoat to match your outfit?
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: 66bigblock on May 08, 2014, 02:10:52 PM
And this is where each previous thread about this topic has gone.



66bigblock

Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: JTH on May 08, 2014, 02:24:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Gary on May 08, 2014, 04:08:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: JTH on May 08, 2014, 04:40:40 PM
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?

Quote
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.)

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

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

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

Quote
  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. 

Quote
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.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: bullit on May 08, 2014, 04:49:01 PM
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.....
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: NE Bull on May 08, 2014, 04:49:46 PM
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.  )
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Mudinyeri on May 08, 2014, 04:54:42 PM
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. 


Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: AWick on May 08, 2014, 05:32:36 PM
This was the thread about DTP

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

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: JTH on May 08, 2014, 06:06:13 PM
This was the thread about DTP
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php?topic=10341.0 (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?
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: DenmanShooter on May 08, 2014, 08:00:34 PM
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. 

Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: SS_N_NE on May 08, 2014, 09:03:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: unfy on May 08, 2014, 09:36:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: ILoveCats on May 08, 2014, 11:13:56 PM
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.)
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: JTH on May 09, 2014, 05:56:15 AM
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. 

Quote
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...

Quote
...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.

Quote
...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.

Quote
(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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Lorimor on May 09, 2014, 07:01:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: GreyGeek on May 09, 2014, 02:04:49 PM
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 (http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen_press.htm)

The Daily Post-Athenian, Athens, Tenn., August 21, 1946; Page 1,6.
Quote
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# (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/18/1292987/-Our-SWAT-teams#)
Quote
    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:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: GreyGeek on May 09, 2014, 03:42:33 PM
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 (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.
http://youtu.be/95Jfa95PLSI (http://youtu.be/95Jfa95PLSI)
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 (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members/) 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.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: bkoenig on May 09, 2014, 04:21:33 PM
Maybe it really is all about fashion.  As long as your firearm doesn't clash with your outfit, it's OK to carry openly.  Otherwise, conceal that hog leg so I don't have to see your fashion faux pas.


Life is too short to carry an ugly gun.  That's why I have CZ's and not Glocks.











 ;D




Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: RedDot on May 09, 2014, 07:54:18 PM
Life is too short to carry an ugly gun.  That's why I have CZ's and not Glocks.








 ;D






Easy there... statements like that will "disturb the peace" of Glock-lovers. Then when they cry foul, out will come the 1911 crowd to ridicule them further. There will be mass hysteria on the thread. Total Lord of the Flies chaos which will draw out SFG to profess his love for the .357Sig round! :o

On second thought...go for it. :P
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Dan W on May 09, 2014, 08:40:21 PM
Glocks are to be heard, not seen   :kiss:
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: JTH on May 09, 2014, 09:20:36 PM
Life is too short to carry an ugly gun.  That's why I have CZ's and not Glocks.

You know you'd open carry this....

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2905/14145429541_690bd97a59_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nxZ2oe)
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: ILoveCats on May 09, 2014, 10:09:18 PM
Well, you said they had assumed validly, so that wording made me think you thought there was something valid in what they said.

I’m probably not clear with that.  When I say “valid” I don’t necessarily mean “sound” (in the deductive argument sequence of validity + truth = soundness.)  Skimming through as many of the LJS comments as I can without getting nauseous, I see a lot of arguments that aren’t invalid (though they may be based on untrue premises and therefore be unsound.)  People are reacting to this story and saying, “Any 4 year old can pull that idiots gun from his back while he rocks his baby,” and, “Anyone else notice how easy it would be to take the guys piece who is holding the baby?”  Are those statements true, even if inartfully said?  Is GreyGeek’s theory posted here about the importance of “surprise” similarly true?  Maybe.  I don’t know.  The tactics of OC are an interesting topic but it wasn’t my main point.

My point is more along the lines of having an effective PR strategy.  We’ve been surrounded by OC stories lately where the OCer is more focused on conveying a political fashion statement than conveying any purpose.  In fact, I can’t think of any reasons why one would open carry other than (1) you believe it’s a tactically better way to carry, (2) it’s more practical/comfortable, or (3) to take a statement. This event seems to be #3; the guy even says he likes feeling like “a walking billboard” when he’s OCing.  These people didn’t all OC to the restaurant because they thought it was going to be invaded by Boko Haram coming to kidnap their daughters.  It was an (admittedly fun and harmless) gathering with a political overtone (to which they themselves perhaps invited the media, to make even more of a statement???) And I admit it’s nowhere near as blatant in-your-face as the youtube videos of the guys carrying rifles down the street with a camera specifically to film their interaction with the police, or other controversial stories related here in the last year.  You’re absolutely right about that and I’m wrong to paint them all with a big, broad brush.

I’m not saying any of this should be illegal.  I’m not saying OC bothers me personally.  I might do it someday if needed for reasons #1 or 2 I mentioned above.  If I see some guy out fishing in a remote area with his SP101 on his hip, or a young lady jogging in town with her Ruger LCP on her hip, that’s great.  If I walk into a restaurant with a big OC confabulation going on, I don’t care at all. What I think may be working to our detriment is the trend where people are doing it not for any immediate defensive purposes, but also without any clear PR strategy.  In a “perception is reality” world it doesn’t matter whether Round the Bend is big or small, or the guy does or doesn’t always carry a baby around, or whatever else LJS readers infer from one photo. What matters is what perception we created.

There are so many intelligent and purposeful things that we could be saying about firearm ownership. The article from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy that someone recently posted here (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf)) was absolutely a goldmine of great arguments and facts that debunk the idea that gun ownership has a causal relationship with murder, suicide and violence, and it made the case that there’s most likely an inverse causal relationship.  Those would be great points to make, but 95% of the time when someone puts a camera or mic in front of an OCer’s face, we hear them say, “I’m doin’ it cuz I can,” which sounds to me very “in your face”.   It also sounds like the fastest way to rally the anti-gun crowd to pass anti-OC laws, and push ambivalent political moderates toward the left side of the issue.  I’ll be careful here because I don’t want to slip back into painting this particular group with a broad brush, but I’m leery and unconvinced of the efficacy of OC gatherings.  I don’t know that they win any converts from the anti-gun crowd, and don’t know that they impress anyone other than our own selves.

Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: bkoenig on May 10, 2014, 04:00:35 PM
You know you'd open carry this....

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2905/14145429541_690bd97a59_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nxZ2oe)

Not enough pink. 
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: unfy on May 12, 2014, 04:21:55 PM
See, I was going to stay out of all the butt hurt in this thread since it has gotten way the intercourse off topic... but.... I really had to throw two cents in about something.

Quote
cuz i can

Is a perfectly fine response.

Why are you reading that holy book?

Why are you walking down THIS street?

Why are you crossing the state line?

Or to be topical:

Why are you wearing THAT t-shirt ?
-- see NRA shirt
-- see US flag shirt

"Cuz I Can" is perfectly fine. Exercising a right does not have to have justification.



The attitude these confrontational folks don't help, I'll admit.  Ya can make points without being a douchebag.



Would it have been beneficial if the "cuz i can" d00dz were able to cite some statistics and other knowledgeable facts and stuff - prolly.  But that was their choice.  Ya can go about getting in similar situations yourself and espousing the statistics and talking points YOU want to make YOURSELF, btw :)
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: HuskerXDM on May 12, 2014, 06:38:26 PM
Whoever runs the Nebraska Open Carry, Facebook page contacted Sen. Coash, who in turn contact Chief Peshong.  They have posted the response on their Facebook page.  If you're on Facebook, check it out:
https://www.facebook.com/neopencarry?hc_location=timeline (https://www.facebook.com/neopencarry?hc_location=timeline)

If they give me permission I'll copy/paste it here, or hopefully they are also on the forum and will do so themselves.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Dan W on May 12, 2014, 07:35:17 PM
It gets to the point at the end of  David's (Coash aide) response

Quote
There would have to be some associated behavior with the person’s actions that starts alarming or putting people in fear to be issued a disturbing the peace citation.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: unfy on May 12, 2014, 09:13:33 PM
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf (http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf)

The possessing a firearm isn't reasonable suspicion - thus ... prolly hard to argue disturbing the peace etc
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: NE Bull on May 20, 2014, 07:49:47 AM
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/chipotle-bans-guns#52241 (http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/chipotle-bans-guns#52241)

THIS!
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Ghost on May 20, 2014, 08:56:58 AM
I'll go elsewhere to eat then.  I wasn't all that fond of Chipotle's menu anyway.

Ghost
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: zofoman on May 20, 2014, 09:18:58 AM
I'll go elsewhere to eat then.  I wasn't all that fond of Chipotle's menu anyway.

Ghost

Same here.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: whatsit on May 20, 2014, 12:20:14 PM
Qdoba is better. However, add this to the growing list of businesses that don't want anything to do with the debate, but are forced into it because of in-your-face, pro-gun tactics that clearly have the opposite effect. (Starbucks is another recent one).
They said in their statement that the issue is not central to their business and want to stay out of it.
Until I see a legal posting on a chipotle door, my opinion is that they are remaining neutral -- as are hundreds of other places that I visit.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Mntnman on May 20, 2014, 01:29:07 PM
Qdoba is better. However, add this to the growing list of businesses that don't want anything to do with the debate, but are forced into it because of in-your-face, pro-gun tactics that clearly have the opposite effect.

That is only your opinion. Where would we be if most folks already hadn't been shamed out of open carry. I think that if all pro2A supporters would open carry some of the time, we wouldn't even have to have this debate. We are just dealing with the opposition already having a head start.


Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Mntnman on May 20, 2014, 01:31:37 PM
I open carry just so carrying doesn't become something we lose just because nobody does it, then when someone does, people freak because they aren't used to it.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: whatsit on May 20, 2014, 02:38:19 PM
You're right -- it's my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, stop reading now.  :laugh:

I fully support the right to open carry. I don't care what form it takes -- you have the right to bear arms. The guys at the Chipotle in TX certainly had every right to open carry their rifles and shotguns.

My point was: it is not a good idea.
Why: because they aren't going to change anyone's mind in our favor -- on the contrary, they may (and in this case, they did) turn people against us.

We are in a fight for hearts and minds. I agree with those that say things like, "your fear of guns doesn't nullify my right." That is true. However, if we exercise our right in a way that turns people against us, we are going to loose this fight.

Open carry your handgun. More power to you. I'm glad you're here and that you're taking responsibility for your own protection. The only part of open carry I disagree with is the idea that it will change hearts and minds in our favor.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: GreyGeek on May 21, 2014, 04:09:54 PM
The "Open Carry" strategy is, IMO, flawed on two levels:
1st, it lets the bad guys know who is armed and who to target first in the commission of a crime.

2nd, it will work the opposite of what is intended by alarming even more people who are already too fearful of people with visible guns, which they equate to thugs, psychotics or media's boogy-man; "gun nuts".   We have an example of that in "The Cloward–Piven strategy" which, according to wikipedia,  is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".   

By displaying guns in public the effect is  the exact opposite of what is desired.  We are seeing the Cloward-Plven strategy being employed right now as we see that the number of workers "participating" have dropped to 63% of the total work force available, with the number of "disabled" climbing to over 10,000,000 workers and family members.  That means that 37% are not "participating" (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/03/361140/the-real-unemployment-numbers-in-the-us/), i.e., holding a job, and Obama has released all detained illegal aliens and still fails to protect our borders.  The reason is obvious -- crash the economy to justify installing a Socialist State with command and control from the top -- by "executive orders".   IF I were an anti-gun fanatic I'd push pro-2A people to display guns in public and push them into peoples faces as often as possible, especially "assault" rifles, so that they could be vilified by an all too willing media which is also pushing against the 2A and the Constitution in general.

Two years ago I gave a speech on the steps of our capital in which I stated that I never thought that in my entire life time I would feel the need to rise in defense of the 2nd Amendment, or the Constitution.   I mentioned the time I took a bus 3 miles to down town Denver, walked into the Dave Cook sporting goods store, plunked down $150 and took the bus back home carrying two M1 Garands, which had just been surplussed (circa 1957). Nobody cared that a 16 year old kid who looked 13 or 14 was carrying around two high powered military rifles on public transporation.   I also said that many pickup trucks had gun racks in them and there were rifles hanging on many of those gun racks.  There were so many people, perhaps a majority,  carrying small pistols in their pockets and purses that none thought anything about it.  You expected that anyone you happened to meet would probably be armed.

That was then.  This is now.    People have been conditioned by the Marxist media to be fearful of firearms of any kind, and to believe that they are not needed because the "State" will protect them, even though the Supreme Court has ruled more than once that it is NOT the purpose of the police to defend any particular person, even if they know that that individual has or is being threatened  with death.   The fact that the states with the most strict gun regulation are also those with the greatest gun violence because thugs and psychotics know that they face an unarmed victim does not register with those fearful citizens because the media does NOT report the uses of firearms to protect citizens unless they can bend that story to their own agenda.   Therefore, IMO, folks who brandish weapons openly in public places "because they can" are doing more damage to the 2A than good.

On September 9th the court in York will hold a sentencing hearing for a murderer I helped convict in 1987 and again in 1997.  In the second trial he was evaluated by two psychiatrists as permanently psychotic and a danger to the community and should never be released.  The jury agreed and found him guilty of 1st degree murder.  He was sentenced to life in prison with no parole.  He was 14 when he committed the murder of his younger sister, whom he sexually assaulted after he shot her, and he was 24 when he was given the life sentence at the second trial.  I recently read that at the time of the murder he had six other assault cases pending in court.    Five liberal groups have been campaigning for several years to get the sentences of murderers who committed their crimes as juveniles, and were sentenced to life in prison,  pardoned or commuted.   That's the main reason why I obtained a CHP.   It would be life threatening to me and my wife if such unnecessary parades of firearms resulted in a flood of businesses putting up no-gun signs to the point that carrying a concealed weapon would be problematic if not impractical.  Or worse, instead of relaxing unconstitutional restrictions on possession and carrying of firearms, such activities creates justifications for adding to restrictions.
 
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Mntnman on May 21, 2014, 05:00:24 PM
IMO, if a criminal sees someone with a firearm, he will decide to do bad somewhere else. Most are wusses, just like those who commit mass shootings in posted victim zones. Also, even when you open carry, most people will not even notice.

There are going to be some offended people along the way. When you say it hurts our cause, it does, temporarily. In the long run, it will be a victory. Everyone that is comfortable with carrying should do so openly at times so that it doesn't get lost for lack of participation. If people get used to seeing guns, they won't be able to deny us that right just because some pansy-arsed hippies get skeered.
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Lorimor on May 22, 2014, 03:59:17 AM
The Chipotle Boys are real knuckleheads.  It's one thing to stroll into the store with a Glock on your belt and quite another to be sportin' an AR. 

If I see someone publicly totin' an AR or other long gun, I'm going to Condition Orange baby.  I don't know if he, she, they have bad intent or are simply attention whores. 

Boneheads. 
Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Gary on May 22, 2014, 11:11:39 AM
The Chipotle Boys are real knuckleheads.  It's one thing to stroll into the store with a Glock on your belt and quite another to be sportin' an AR. 

If I see someone publicly totin' an AR or other long gun, I'm going to Condition Orange baby.  I don't know if he, she, they have bad intent or are simply attention whores. 

Boneheads.

Amen, me Also. 

I am very pro 2nd amendment.  I support several of the national groups.  I teach 2nd amendment classes and 2nd Ammendment ideals.   

However, supporting the right, does not go overboard to supporting an issue in a wrong way. 

I own ARs and bullpup shotguns.  How about I strap two of each on my back, with a few hundred rounds of ammo showing plainly for everyone to see, and go walking around in malls and box stores.   What would it prove?   Would such an action be supporting our constitutional rights?    No, it would not.  Right things, done aberrant, are not Right.

Sent from my VS950 4G using Tapatalk

Title: Re: In today's Urinal Star.....
Post by: Gary on May 22, 2014, 11:31:23 AM
Yesterday, at Wal-Mart, I tried out a new shoulder holster.  Made by classic old? ?? Made In el passo Texas.   High quality outfit.  Because it was my first time out and about with this holster, it was used for weight and feel only.  Had I needed a gun, I would have gone to my primary, strong side hip iwb 4 o'clock Glock 22C.  Had I needed a back up, ankle holster Glock 23C, both in .40 s&w.   

What I am saying is, there is a right way to do things, and there is a wrong way to do things.  Sometimes choices are grey rather than black and white.  I could have tested out my new holster all by itself.    That would not have violated any safety rules.  I am sure we have all tested out new holsters, by just using that new holster alone.   I choose to do it the way I did, because I had not worn a jackass style holster in 30 years.  For me, and my comfort, as well as the safety of everyone I came into contact with, I choose to go the extra effort, and not use it as a CHP arm of choice.   I could easily have used this new holster as my primary.  I have thousands of hours doing so, and hundreds of hours training in one.  However, nothing current, and no days spent with this holster. 

I will wear this new rig many times, many training presentations, thousands of rounds fired, before I will conceal carry with this rig as my primary, if (big if)  I choose to use it at all. 

Me choosing not to go primary with my new holster is like the choice of open or concealed, rifle or handgun.  I could have made other choices, almost as good.

I see open carry as a choice, not as good as concealed.  I see military style rifles in Wal-Mart as an open carry choice, as a bad choice.   It brings issues to the table, fears to the table, we should not explore. 

Open carry in box stores of military style rifles, could easily get my freedom to carry a gun, in a discrete appropriate fashion, stripped away

Putting it another way, we all have guns and we all have genitals.   Both of which, I do not want to see in Wal-Mart.



Sent from my VS950 4G using Tapatalk