# Open Carry Rallies



## midtnfamilyguy (Nov 17, 2012)

I don't know if this has been brought up or not, but I have a question. Do ya'll feel that people openly carrying rifles are hurting or helping 2nd Amendments rights?


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

Hurting.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

Purkeypilot said:


> Hurting.


What he said!


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

The open carry of long guns is a civil protest. It lets them know we will stand up for our rights and also points out the ridiculousness of not allowing open carry of handguns.

Those saying it hurts us are basically saying that exercising a _RIGHT _makes it more likely that that right will be taken away. This is an idiotic argument and not worthy of further comment by me.


----------



## Mrs_Clark (Jun 25, 2014)

Definitely hurting. If I see a group of people walking around in public with rifles I would be a little nervous. Most people carry a hand gun for personal protection not a rifle. In my opinion, they just want attention regardless of the fact that its actually hurting the cause.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

It is legal and it is a Right. The twisted liberal media will use it to advance the communist agenda.

The real focus should be on the thugs and gang bangers who continue to kill each other and innocents on a daily basis in large metro areas. They typically are using stolen firearms, knives or other means. We can continue to allow the media to turn our eyes toward Open Carry Rallies and other Red Herrings and we then become complicit in ignoring the real issues. 

FBI statistics show that certain and specific pockets of urban areas with populations over 200,000 people are the leading violent gun crime areas in the nation. Predominantly committed by young black and hispanic men between the ages of 16-35. A vast majority on the government dole and come from households without a father.

A couple of people in Texas going to a Sonic while legally carrying their rifles should not be the news that we are focusing.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

*Open carry blows your cover,* so in that respect it's not good as it attracts the cops attention and lets them know you own guns.
I see in some youtube vids that cops are filming carriers and noting their car registrations when they check them out, so the government are probably compiling a national database of carriers mugshots so that in any kind of national emergency or martial law situation they can track them down, seize their guns and jail them on the grounds that they're "troublemakers".

For example, the sight of open carriers in the street makes ordinary citizens and kids unhappy, so the cops could nab you for violating peoples right to happiness-
_"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty *and the pursuit of Happiness*"_

Secondly, they could nab you on the grounds that you're not a "peacable citizen" for upsetting people in the street-
_"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are *peaceable citizens *from keeping their own arms"- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)_

At the moment, carriers are having an easy ride, but in any kind of national emergency or SHTF situation they could find the cops kicking down their doors gone midnight to collar them..


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

So when we get used to seeing SWAT teams and tanks it will no longer raise suspicion? It will be run of the mill? Yes, Yes, Yes, The sooner folks get used to the idea that guns or their display is not going away the better. They try this social stigma that even the mere presence of a firearm is bad news. We should not allow them to drive us underground for exerting our God given rights. Note: These are not rights given to us by the gov. Kinda like the gay movement. We're here, we're queer, get used to it.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

I guess folks think quite differently. Before I carried I always felt safer when I detected the print or saw open carry, but, thats just me.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

I wonder sometimes if anti-gun folks are in bad areas, and think to themselves, "I wish I had a gun". Instead of "where the hell are the cops". Just a thought, if they were true to themselves, their view might change. my .02.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Sooner or later an open carrier is going to get shot by a citizen for scaring his wife and kids, or if the carrier is walking towards a school or kids playground.
And some cops are getting fed up of carriers too, in one youtube vid an angry cop rests his hand on the butt of his holstered weapon and says to a carrier who's got an AR slung on his back-_ "If I think you pose a threat I will shoot you in the head!"_


----------



## MI.oldguy (Apr 18, 2013)

I believe it is hurting,sure its a protest,its legal.but it is drawing attention to us all.I don't open carry, concealed all the time.and I just cant wrap my head around carrying a long arm in public except, at the range.............so flame on.


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

Prepadoodle said:


> The open carry of long guns is a civil protest. It lets them know we will stand up for our rights and also points out the ridiculousness of not allowing open carry of handguns.
> 
> Those saying it hurts us are basically saying that exercising a _RIGHT _makes it more likely that that right will be taken away. This is an idiotic argument and not worthy of further comment by me.


The protests and open carry of long guns is not wrong, it's just not smart. It's an unwise thing to do, because the frigging media uses that shit against us. Think about it. They all have good intentions when they partake in these protests, but it is most DEFINITELY a counter-productive way to defend our _RIGHT
_


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Are you talking about the retards who go into restaurants, stores, walk down the street, etc., with long weapons slung over their backs?

They are idiotic retards who don't know the difference between a defensive weapon meant to protect one from thugs and outlaws, and long weapons meant to take back a country from tyranny and arbitrary rule.

Their point is lost in their stupidity.

If they wanted to make the point, it would be better made by open carrying a sidearm.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Folks showing up at a "open carry" rally with no guns. OK.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Lucky Jim said:


> * the sight of open carriers in the street makes ordinary citizens and kids unhappy, so the cops could nab you for violating peoples right to happiness-
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
> 
> *


* actually this is in correct. you as a person is not guaranteed happiness, therefore the government could not nab anyone because they made you unhappy... there is no such thing as a "right to be happy". however, you may pursue happiness, hence " the pursuit of happiness".

as for open carrying a rifle, it does hurt 2A because this action is being used against the people for exercising their right. but the question is.. if the person have the right to open carry, why do we frown when a person practices this rights. yes, I think its more reasonable to carry a pistol than a rifle, but if carrying a rifle makes you happy and you do not harm anyone... you should go for it and pursue what gives you happiness...*


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

I agree with Prepadoodle. Open Carry at an organized rally shows them that "Yes, we are here as a group standing up for our rights." In that instance, I have no issue with it. 

However, the ass munches who do it two and three at a time walking into Taco Bell's and Jack In The Box, do nothing more than unnecessarily scare people and they hurt "the cause". It may be legal to do so, and yes, you are exercising your right, but I question the wisdom of doing so. Those good folks who may not have cared one way or the other, probably have an opinion about it now. And I doubt it says "Yeah! Good for you! Yea..." ???

I fear that at some point, people will grow tired of it and it will become illegal. I think there are times when you simply let the sleeping dog lie. This is one of those times.


----------



## Innkeeper (Jun 18, 2014)

We have the right in Michigan to open carry a side arm, I can't say I have ever seen anyone do it, but then where I live it is easy to get a CPL, and everyone does. I have also not seen any protesters with Long Guns, but this is the country , but I agree with the Majority it is Hurting the view of people sympathetic to the siding with us against Anti-Gun groups, it makes the progressive taunt of right wing nut job seem more true.


----------



## 9UC (Dec 21, 2012)

Lucky Jim said:


> *Open carry blows your cover,*


Sums up my philosophy in five simple words.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

9UC said:


> Sums up my philosophy in five simple words.


Agreed, but if one is trying to make a point, an open carried sidearm is better than a concealed weapon.

Then again, what's the use of protesting where it is legal? :lol:


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Why should we have to be covert in our beliefs, and forced to accept others, ie; abortion, islam, sharia law (sp) and more than my drucken mind can name?!! When you come to America you assimilate, if you want the same as where you came from, go back there!! Don't try to change us! Sorry, went off topic. My bad.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Arklatex said:


> It's okay. You're druck. But i agree. If someone wants to come to America they should be willing and able to accept our ways. If not then they should stay on the boat.


How things should be and how those controlling national policy are two different things.


----------



## Jfpurdue01 (Jun 29, 2014)

I have plenty of rights. Just because the first amendment is there doesn't mean it's a good idea to go to a street corner and start screaming at people. Having the right to do something and it being smart to do it are two different things. It is definitely hurting the cause and making people scared of people carrying guns. It also puts CCW holders on alert when they see that.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jfpurdue01 said:


> I have plenty of rights. Just because the first amendment is there doesn't mean it's a good idea to go to a street corner and start screaming at people. Having the right to do something and it being smart to do it are two different things. It is definitely hurting the cause and making people scared of people carrying guns. It also puts CCW holders on alert when they see that.


In other words, with rights comes responsibilities.


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

Anyone that comes to this country and tries to make it like the shithole that they came from, needs to be deported back to said shithole.


----------



## Innkeeper (Jun 18, 2014)

Denton said:


> In other words, with rights comes responsibilities.


"with Great Power comes Great Responsibility"- Voltaire

"To those who much is given much is required" Luke 12:48


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Innkeeper said:


> "with Great Power comes Great Responsibility"- Voltaire
> 
> "To those who much is given much is required" Luke 12:48


"Its all fun and games until someone drops his weiner" Slippy


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

I guess those that say hurting would also be more likely to stand in one of the BLM's 1st Amendment zone?


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Hey guys I hope I haven't given the impression that I'm trying to meddle in US affairs which are none of my business, all I'm saying is that purely from the *prepping/survivalist point of view* it might not be a good idea for open carriers to attract attention to themselves.

For example in this vid an open carrier has been walking up and down opposite a courthouse across the street, so the cops come over to check him out.
It all goes smoothly and politely on both sides, but notice two of the cops pull out cameras and start filming the carrier.
In this still from the vid, the cop on the left has got a big smile on his face as if he's thinking- "Okay we've "captured" the carrier on camera, now we'll enter his mugshot into our database of "open carry merchants" and circulate it around the FBI, homeland security and all law enforcement agencies"..

In fact the cop says in the vid- *"If your goal is to draw attention to yourself you've certainly done that!"*


----------



## Mrs_Clark (Jun 25, 2014)

I agree with what they are trying to accomplish but all they have done is have quite a few businesses ban guns from their establishments. In my opinion that is hurting the cause.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

If we had a bunker the last thing we'd do is advertise it. Same with guns, why let the whole world know you're packing?..

This one is a tourist attraction in England-


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

Not my cup of tea, but I see nothing wrong with the open carry rally. In my vie, at least they are protesting to restore rights that have been taken from them. Quit different from the illegal alien protesting for a right they do not have. But that is what happens in the push for globalism.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

dsdmmat said:


> I guess those that say hurting would also be more likely to stand in one of the BLM's 1st Amendment zone?


Nope. The point you're missing is that simply because you CAN do something, doesn't always mean you should. I do not subscribe to the "A right not exercised is a right lost" theory. It's legal, so what's the problem? When they try to take that right away, that's when you organize and show solidarity. Why shove it in peoples faces when "Gun Control" is a hot button topic? Why make yourself look like the jerk-off that gun control advocates say you are?

When you're trying to sway people to your way of thinking, you do not shove it down their throat and stick in their face, because you feel you have the right to do so.

If I want to get laid, I don't just take it. I don't whisper "Just let it happen" and force myself upon them. If I responded to you by going "Hey Mat, you're a ****ing idiot and an inbred retard and have no idea what you're talking about asshole", would you be more, or less inclined, to hear WHY I think you should take my side?

That would be pretty inflammatory and would shut down any line of communication we could have had. Might even get me punched in the nose. And these guys carrying AR's into restaurants and other public venues are inflammatory and it shuts down lines of communication.

Shower, shave, put on some clean clothes, dress like everyone else (not a bunch of tactical hoo-haa gear) and hand out some fliers or make a sign. "Honk if you support open carry". Show everybody else, that you're LIKE, everybody else. And not some nut bag. Image is very important in this game.

When you want people to come to your side, to see, understand and agree with your point of view, when you want to get laid, you're nice. You schmooze them. You educate them, you alleviate the fears they may have, explain the benefits of seeing your point of view. You don't just take it.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I don't care what you say, BigDogBuc has got it goin' on!


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Open carry..


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Lucky Jim is on a roll...:shock:::clapping::


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

bigdogbuc said:


> Nope. The point you're missing is that simply because you CAN do something, doesn't always mean you should. I do not subscribe to the "A right not exercised is a right lost" theory. It's legal, so what's the problem? When they try to take that right away, that's when you organize and show solidarity. Why shove it in peoples faces when "Gun Control" is a hot button topic? Why make yourself look like the jerk-off that gun control advocates say you are?
> 
> When you're trying to sway people to your way of thinking, you do not shove it down their throat and stick in their face, because you feel you have the right to do so.
> 
> ...


Best post on this thread so far.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

Lucky Jim said:


> Open carry..


Is this holster available in stores? I want one.


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

For Some Openly Practicing There First Amendment Harms More Than Helps. I Wish Every One Open Carried So The nay Sayers Would Get Over it.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

Arklatex said:


> I don't get it. Where's the gun?


Right in between those luscious, beautiful b.......


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

alterego said:


> For Some Openly Practicing There First Amendment Harms More Than Helps. I Wish Every One Open Carried So The nay Sayers Would Get Over it.


Alterego,

I've noticed that on most of your recent posts, almost every word you type starts with a Capital Letter? What gives big guy?

Your friend

Slippy


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

Slippy said:


> Alterego,
> 
> I've noticed that on most of your recent posts, almost every word you type starts with a Capital Letter? What gives big guy?
> 
> ...


Huh...look at that. They sure do. Interesting observation Slippy


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

I admit, now that I'm seeing it, it does throw off the flow of reading


----------



## SAR-1L (Mar 13, 2013)

I think it comes down to common sense, and understanding a rifle is intimidating to most people even
those with pistols for carry. My first question would be why the **** does this guy have a rifle?

You see people talking about gun rights in videos, getting upset when an officer shows up with a
rifle when they are inquiring about his pistol. Plus to be honest how many of those dip shits are
wearing street clothes that say anything but professional?

If you are going to carry, you need to be responsible, you need to dress and conduct yourself
professionally. 

I open carry @ public events, in the store, in front of officers, etc. I dress professional, I practice
good hygiene ( unlike some of this rifle toting ****tards ) and I say please and thank you.
How many problems have I had???

ZERO problems, even while well in plain sight of officers. I have responded to crash sites tons of law enforcement
no one asks a thing, cause I am professional, and some of the cops who have shown up have been
serious ****ing dicks!

Some people are curious, I have even received compliments from some people, saying thank you for carrying
or I think it is great that you carry to keep yourself and others around you safe.

But once again I am extremely professional, I am extremely polite when I interact with people it goes a long long way!

I don't even think these guys would have as many problems with their rifles if they didn't look
like some sort of dungeons and dragons role play **** tard that just came from a buffet at
mcdonalds, all dirty and covered in shit and ketchup/mustard. They irritate the piss out of me.

If you aren't responsible for your hygiene how can I trust you to keep your gun clean.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

SAR-1L said:


> I think it comes down to common sense, and understanding a rifle is intimidating to most people even
> those with pistols for carry. My first question would be why the **** does this guy have a rifle?
> 
> You see people talking about gun rights in videos, getting upset when an officer shows up with a
> ...


I'm in total agreement SAR.

Also, it's apparent that your good hygiene has not gone unnoticed.


----------



## SAR-1L (Mar 13, 2013)

Glad you are in agreement Slippy. If only the world was just a little more respectful to each other,
and we all scrubbed our balls, what a wonderful world we would live in.


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

I agree with you as well SAR. I would not be surprised if a lot of the people that see these idiots, and then disagree with Second Amendment rights, actually have a problem with the idiots, not the guns, and they just don't know it.

The way someone conducts themselves can have a massive influence on many other things that aren't directly related. Does that make sense to you guys? It's hard to explain the concept I am thinking about


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

Basically, I feel that when people carry themselves poorly, the people around them will feel that everything they do, or are part of, is bad.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

I scrub my balls SAR. Thoroughly.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

bigdogbuc said:


> Nope. The point you're missing is that simply because you CAN do something, doesn't always mean you should. I do not subscribe to the "A right not exercised is a right lost" theory. It's legal, so what's the problem? When they try to take that right away, that's when you organize and show solidarity. Why shove it in peoples faces when "Gun Control" is a hot button topic? Why make yourself look like the jerk-off that gun control advocates say you are?
> 
> When you're trying to sway people to your way of thinking, you do not shove it down their throat and stick in their face, because you feel you have the right to do so.
> 
> ...


Getting laid is a straw man argument, you do not have the right to get laid, nobody can make it illegal for you to get laid, and if you force yourself on another person it is illegal. I have the right to keep and bear arms period. That right cannot be legally infringed upon by any government Amendment 2 and 14 of the constitution. It is a natural right not one granted by the government. it is not in the government perview to take or limit that right. We live in a constitutional republic where individual rights are supposed to be protected from mob rule. The theory of bringing people to your side of the argument indicates that you accept a majority has the right to lord over the minority regardless of thier rights. I am sorry I do not subscribe to that theory.

I don't subscribe to the theory that my rights are theirs to take. I don't really care what people think. No one in America has the right to not be offended. when I lived in AZ I open carried along with half the population and never had a problem. I think that people who get upset about seeing a man with a gun need to grow a pair and realize the world is actually a dangeous place if you are not paying attention.

There are a lot of people who act stupid in public but my rights only count on my actions being correct not what some dumbass is doing. That is the point a lot of Americans miss. Your rights are yours to lose by your actions being illegal. They are not yours to lose because someone gets offended.

We will just have to agree to disagree... that is still legal right?


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

dsdmmat said:


> Getting laid is a straw man argument, you do not have the right to get laid, nobody can make it illegal for you to get laid, and if you force yourself on another person it is illegal. I have the right to keep and bear arms period. That right cannot be legally infringed upon by any government Amendment 2 and 14 of the constitution. It is a natural right not one granted by the government. it is not in the government perview to take or limit that right. We live in a constitutional republic where individual rights are supposed to be protected from mob rule. The theory of bringing people to your side of the argument indicates that you accept a majority has the right to lord over the minority regardless of thier rights. I am sorry I do not subscribe to that theory.
> 
> I don't subscribe to the theory that my rights are theirs to take. I don't really care what people think. No one in America has the right to not be offended. when I lived in AZ I open carried along with half the population and never had a problem. I think that people who get upset about seeing a man with a gun need to grow a pair and realize the world is actually a dangeous place if you are not paying attention.
> 
> ...


The people that get all jumpy and think that that mere sight of someone carrying a gun is just terrifying are completely sheltered, ignorant, LAZY, ill-informed and just mentally GONE. People in todays work don't know shit about ANYTHING. They are completely unaware that they don't know. They don't know, and they are unaware that they don't know. It's called Unconscious Incompetence. What scares the hell out of me, and makes me mad, is not what people don't know. It's WHY they don't know it. People are mindless sheep...


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

dsd, I understand what you are saying. I agree with your concept. If only the world allowed for such a simple righteous ideal. I also understand what BDB is saying and agree with him. The way I take it (and agree) is that you have to be realistic. It's easy to get stubborn and argumentative with such things as the Second Amendment, but due to the current system and all of the mindless idiots I speak of in the above post, to a certain extent, you HAVE to play the game. These people rallying have the best intent, but it is just simply not helping the cause. It has the potential to shoot us gun people in the foot. The media eats this kind of shit up, and with all the emotion driven drama queens in the population and government, this type of tactic will not have the same effect as it would have in the 1940s or 50s. 

It's sad as HELL, but it is what it is.

Politics and emotion OWN America anymore.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Purkeypilot said:


> dsd, I understand what you are saying. I agree with your concept. If only the world allowed for such a simple righteous ideal. I also understand what BDB is saying and agree with him. The way I take it (and agree) is that you have to be realistic. It's easy to get stubborn and argumentative with such things as the Second Amendment, but due to the current system and all of the mindless idiots I speak of in the above post, to a certain extent, you HAVE to play the game. These people rallying have the best intent, but it is just simply not helping the cause. It has the potential to shoot us gun people in the foot. The media eats this kind of shit up, and with all the emotion driven drama queens in the population and government, this type of tactic will not have the same effect as it would have in the 1940s or 50s.
> 
> It's sad as HELL, but it is what it is.
> 
> Politics and emotion OWN America anymore.


If our Great Grandfathers took care of this in the 1930s we would not be in the mess we are today.

I don't agree that playing the game is the right way to go about it. If you allow others to treat your rights as privileges that is what they become. The Antis will never stop asking you to compromise then they will tell you it is reasonable. I call BS everytime one opens their pie hole.


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

So, here's how stupid and helpless people are:

I just read an Article that some anti-gun asshole wrote about the Las Vegas shooting that happened recently; the comments some of these idiots posted in response to it, were enough to make my frigging blood boil.

The two comments that really sent me over the edge:

One idiot states "you have all these right wing gun nuts that work as fast as they can to judge a returning missing soldier [Bowe Bergdahl] who was over there fighting a REAL war, and apparently just got overwhelmed, but they fight this stupid fake war over the second amendment..."

Seriously!? Stop being a pussy. What's with all the feel-good hippy bulls**t!? He got overwhelmed??? REALLY!? Our populace has turned in to a bunch of whiny pansies!

Another idiot states: "It's a disgrace that our government seems to have no response to these shooting incidents. Are they just waiting on the sidelines and expecting it to go away? It's not going to go away! It's not going to STOP until I government does something. They need to act NOW!"

Here's an idea asshole; stop asking your government for everything you socialist, dependent, sheep f*ck. When did our society start acting like helpless children and treating the government like their mommy and daddy who will protect them and provide them everything.

People who sacrifice freedom for security shall have neither.


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

dsdmmat said:


> If our Great Grandfathers took care of this in the 1930s we would not be in the mess we are today.


Dude, totally. I rack my brain trying to figure out when shit started getting ridiculous. I think it was before my time...it dives me crazy.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Purkeypilot said:


> Dude, totally. I rack my brain trying to figure out when shit started getting ridiculous. I think it was before my time...it dives me crazy.


I called Diane Frankenstein in 1994 and told her if she didn't like the 2A to go F herself in another country and leave mine alone. This time they cannot get away with doing things at midnight without anyone knowing because of the internet.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

dsdmmat said:


> Getting laid is a straw man argument, you do not have the right to get laid, nobody can make it illegal for you to get laid, and if you force yourself on another person it is illegal. I have the right to keep and bear arms period. That right cannot be legally infringed upon by any government Amendment 2 and 14 of the constitution. It is a natural right not one granted by the government. it is not in the government perview to take or limit that right. We live in a constitutional republic where individual rights are supposed to be protected from mob rule. The theory of bringing people to your side of the argument indicates that you accept a majority has the right to lord over the minority regardless of thier rights. I am sorry I do not subscribe to that theory.
> 
> I don't subscribe to the theory that my rights are theirs to take. I don't really care what people think. No one in America has the right to not be offended. when I lived in AZ I open carried along with half the population and never had a problem. I think that people who get upset about seeing a man with a gun need to grow a pair and realize the world is actually a dangeous place if you are not paying attention.
> 
> ...


You know Matt. I had a really long, articulate post in response to your comment. But you know what? I deleted it after I posted it. It was full of negativity and I had some very choice words for you and what I think of your reply. I decided, it's just not worth it. I'm a better person than that.

So I'm going to break it down to one simple sentence; I completely disagree with your approach and your personal philosophy. It's sad.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

bigdogbuc said:


> You know Matt. I had a really long, articulate post in response to your comment. But you know what? I deleted it after I posted it. It was full of negativity and I had some very choice words for you and what I think of your reply. I decided, it's just not worth it. I'm a better person than that.
> 
> So I'm going to break it down to one simple sentence; I completely disagree with your approach and your personal philosophy. It's sad.


Well it is still legal in this country to disagree. And try not to take anything personally, I don't it is the internet afterall. I have bigger things to worry about and I am sure you do too.


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

dsdmmat said:


> I called Diane Frankenstein in 1994 and told her if she didn't like the 2A to go F herself in another country and leave mine alone. This time they cannot get away with doing things at midnight without anyone knowing because of the internet.


Governor Brown pulled a midnight sign in CA in late 2011 on Open Carry and a couple of other things...


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

Honestly BDB, not trying to pick sides here, but I completely agree with your post. You won't get anywhere if you carry yourself like an abrasive ass, shoving your opinion down people's throats. You talked about how it will just sever any possible line of communication. Reminds me of a similar concept I expressed in a previous post (same thread); when these people take part in a rally and try to prove a point by acting like an ass, punching people in the face with their views, people will be turned off by everything these people do or represent, including guns, gun rights, and anything and everything else. In the end, it's hurting the cause.

Our views and opinions need to be expressed. But they need to be expressed in a calm, cool, collect, and assertive manner. Giving in to high emotion, argumentative behavior will handicap our cause in the end.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

The question was if people who are open carrying long guns are helping or hurting. IMO they are hurting. If I looked out my front window and saw someone with an AR on his back my first response would be to go get a firearm of my own in case I needed to defend my home. If I was in front of a business and was planning on going inside and saw someone with an AR go into it, I would go somewhere else. Yes, they may have the right but at the same time there is also the possibility that some nut job was going in to rob or shoot up the place. I know it doesn't really make since since I have been places where open carry was legal and didn't have a problem with someone carrying a pistol, but to me a open carry of a long gun is a different story. Frankly I can understand how some business owner would feel that the people carrying long guns is hurting his business and just ban all firearms. As mentioned earlier, another problem is that many of these people are wannabees with greasy hair and decked out in cammo like they are on their way to fight a war in the jungle. Here's a hint, the purpose of camouflage is to blend in with your surroundings. Frankly every time I see someone running around in cammo who has never been in the military and aren't hunting, I immediately feel contempt for them. Strap on a long gun to go to McDonalds, and my contempt meter pegs out.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Notsoyoung said:


> The question was if people who are open carrying long guns are helping or hurting. IMO they are hurting. If I looked out my front window and saw someone with an AR on his back my first response would be to go get a firearm of my own in case I needed to defend my home. If I was in front of a business and was planning on going inside and saw someone with an AR go into it, I would go somewhere else. Yes, they may have the right but at the same time there is also the possibility that some nut job was going in to rob or shoot up the place. I know it doesn't really make since since I have been places where open carry was legal and didn't have a problem with someone carrying a pistol, but to me a open carry of a long gun is a different story. Frankly I can understand how some business owner would feel that the people carrying long guns is hurting his business and just ban all firearms. As mentioned earlier, another problem is that many of these people are wannabees with greasy hair and decked out in cammo like they are on their way to fight a war in the jungle. Here's a hint, the purpose of camouflage is to blend in with your surroundings. Frankly every time I see someone running around in cammo who has never been in the military and aren't hunting, I immediately feel contempt for them. Strap on a long gun to go to McDonalds, and my contempt meter pegs out.


Problem is not everyone can get a pistol or legally carry one, if you are 18-20 in most places that limits your option. In some states it is illegal to open carry a pistol but not a rifle so your options are limited. I don't have a problem with people open carrying that is their right.

Some people seem to be coming from the position that open carrying a rifle is some how wrong. Question: what is the basis for this stance? Why do you fear good people carrying any weapon? Do you beileve you have the right to choose what another person carries for defense? If so what makes you any different than the gun banners?


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

dsdmmat said:


> Problem is not everyone can get a pistol or legally carry one, if you are 18-20 in most places that limits your option. In some states it is illegal to open carry a pistol but not a rifle so your options are limited. I don't have a problem with people open carrying that is their right.
> 
> Some people seem to be coming from the position that open carrying a rifle is some how wrong. Question: what is the basis for this stance? Why do you fear good people carrying any weapon? Do you beileve you have the right to choose what another person carries for defense? If so what makes you any different than the gun banners?


The question wasn't whether it is wrong or right, but if it helps or hurts. It may be perfectly legal for someone to carry an AR into a place of business, but it is also a fact that in reality if someone walks into a business with an AR on their back there is a good chance that it will drive many of the other customers away. I don't believe I said that I had the right to decide what other people carry for defense. I said that those who do are hurting rather then helping the public opinion about gun rights, and that I can understand if some businesses ban the carrying of long guns into their establishments because it hurts business. Let's be honest about it, most people who carry long guns in public are not doing so for self protection as much as they are trying to make a statement. Were I eating somewhere with my wife and kids and some guy with greasy hair, camo, and an AR came walking in, I would walk out. I would not demand that he be thrown out, nor would I demand that his firearm be taking away, but I also know that he posses a very real possible threat and I would go somewhere else to eat where I could be more relaxed while I ate. Same thing for my home. If I saw the same person marching up and down in front of my house I would keep my own firearm handy just in case, although in fact I always have a firearm readily in my house just in case.

It's not the "good" people carrying guns that I get nervous about, but I can't tell how responsible someone is who has a gun and I have my doubts about the judgement of people who run around carrying AR's and dressed like they are getting ready to go to a war zone. Like I said, most of them that I have seen do not appear to be doing so for self protection but more like they are making some type of statement. I have only personally seen 5 or 6 people open carrying long guns, and every one of them was dressed in camo, was not just simply going about their business but seemed to be parading back and forth daring someone to say something to them. Did they have the right to do so? Evidently they did. Did they leave a positive impression with me? NO. Frankly I thought they were wannabe losers, so based on them I answer the help or hurt question with a big HURT.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Notsoyoung said:


> I don't believe I said that I had the right to decide what other people carry for defense.


 sorry the questions were general and not specifically aimed at you. I just quoted your post for reference.

As to your last point though, you stated that you have a firearm ready just in case anyway, so a person walking down the street with a rifle really doesn't change your defensive posture.

When I was a kid we used to walk up and down the street with long guns all the time, nobody cared because they knew who we were and what we were doing. It is not the gun that has changed it is the communities and the people who have changed. I see kids walking down the street with rifles every now and then where I live it is no big deal. I walk around my current location with about 20,000 people carrying machineguns, rifles and handguns (about half are US Soldiers the others are either foreign military or some type of government civilian).

If I read your intent correctly: The real issue you is not the weapon it is the person. I bet you would be just as alerted or on guard or uncomfortable if you saw someone you didn't know or "some greasy haired camo wearing punk" walk in with a chain saw or an axe.


----------



## omegabrock (Jun 16, 2014)

i stopped reading after a couple of pages because it seems like there is an "all or nothing" mentality of a lot of people. the thing is, open carry has been turned into a political war so it needs to be handled as one. we are a republic where the laws are meant to defend the people against government but as you can see, our laws are being turned into a form of oppression on everybody. "just because you can, doesnt mean you should" - think about this. restaurants and other stores are in the business to make money. why would they publicly go one way or another to segregate source of profit? if a business has no political stance - meaning, they allow the local laws to dictate inside their store, why would you want to turn that place into a political battleground? risk them stating they don't want you to bring guns in...it's in the private sector which means they have the right to ban them - legally. i may not agree with them banning but i support their right. you can't pick and choose which rights you have or who has which rights they want. there are better ways of handling it than that.

as for the open carry rallies where they make a stand at those businesses, i support their right to do it but they are idiots for thinking it HELPS the 2A movement. it only hurts the cause they are claiming to be supporting. an open carry rally would have less back lash from society if they the businesses out of it...take the rallies to the capitol. 

would you protest wall street at a flea market?


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Purkeypilot said:


> Honestly BDB, not trying to pick sides here, but I completely agree with your post. You won't get anywhere if you carry yourself like an abrasive ass, shoving your opinion down people's throats. You talked about how it will just sever any possible line of communication. Reminds me of a similar concept I expressed in a previous post (same thread); when these people take part in a rally and try to prove a point by acting like an ass, punching people in the face with their views, people will be turned off by everything these people do or represent, including guns, gun rights, and anything and everything else. In the end, it's hurting the cause.
> 
> Our views and opinions need to be expressed. But they need to be expressed in a calm, cool, collect, and assertive manner. Giving in to high emotion, argumentative behavior will handicap our cause in the end.


Yet somehow it is fine for the gun grabbers to punch you in the face with lies about statisitics and how easy it is to get a machine gun? 
I get BDBs point and I *do not *go out of my way to shove my opinion down someones throat, but at the same time I will not back away from a conversation about weapons with a gun grabber, just because they are armed with fantasies about utopia and how I am either a wimp or a want to be murderer because I choose to cary a gun. But at the same time I do not care what their opinion is because it is either pointless or futile to care about changing their minds.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

omegabrock said:


> ....... an open carry rally would have less back lash from society if they the businesses out of it...take the rallies to the capitol.
> would you protest wall street at a flea market?


This is very true. This year at an anti NY-SAFE act rally at the capital in Albany, NY. NYSP actually removed toy weapons being used for props from protestors. There is a lawsuit pending right now about it but, you can see how far some in government are willing to go to keep you from exercising your rights to protest peaceably. Some Anti gun people also posted official looking signs around the protest area that toy guns were not allowed at the protest. It is not only about the 2A it is about all of your rights being deminished because you do not go along with the status quo.


----------



## omegabrock (Jun 16, 2014)

Notsoyoung said:


> The question wasn't whether it is wrong or right, but if it helps or hurts. It may be perfectly legal for someone to carry an AR into a place of business, but it is also a fact that in reality if someone walks into a business with an AR on their back there is a good chance that it will drive many of the other customers away.


this is exactly it. if you drive away a business' customers, they will take a stand against what is driving them away which is interpreted as the business supporting more gun laws which makes politicians feel they are right which continues the push for more gun legislation = hurting the pro 2A cause

people keep arguing feelings in this like it matters. last time i read the constitution, i didnt see anything in there about emotions or feelings playing any part of legal legislation yet feelings are the only thing the gun control advocates have. my rights end where the next person's rights begins and the last time i checked we already had laws against murder, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. creating new laws for a false sense of security is unconstitutional and THAT is what needs to be argued. NOT which businesses allow what in their stores and not what some random person FEELS about another person's rights


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

It is a right.
Hurting or helping is irrelevant.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

omegabrock said:


> .it's in the private sector which means they have the right to ban them - legally. i may not agree with them banning but i support their right. you can't pick and choose which rights you have or who has which rights they want. there are better ways of handling it than that.


 You know, I'm glad you brought that to my attention. As many times as I've read the 2nd Amendment I've always missed the part after SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED that read "except if your in the private sector".


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I like to refresh myself on the Bill of Rights from time to time and Arizona Infidel is correct;

Amendment II 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The constitution, and the Bill of Rights, was not written to protect us from one another. It was written to define and confine the government.
I can stomp all over your rights when you are within the confines of my property.
You don't get to say what you want, you don't get to do what you want.
Your rights be damned when you are on *MY* land.

That being said, the government *MUST* adhere to the limits placed on them by the constitution, and the Bill of Rights, or there should be hell to pay.

A private entity has total and complete authority to restrict your rights when you decide to enter their establishment.
The constitution does NOT change this in the slightest, as it does not pertain to them.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Slippy said:


> I like to refresh myself on the Bill of Rights from time to time and Arizona Infidel is correct;
> 
> Amendment II
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


And in the language of the day, "well regulated" meant "well equipped". In a manner required for military type service, since some of the Founding Fathers were against having a standing army. It had nothing to do with "rules and regulations" in today's context. That means that I should be allowed to own and possess belt fed automatic weapons, hand grenades, selective fire rifles, and all manner of Light Weapons Infantry gear.
And since I can not, as of 1934, my rights have already been infringed.

That said, these clowns that carry AR's slung over their shoulders into the local Ponderosa Steakhouse are, in my not so humble opinion, simply attention whores. "Look at me!!! I've got a gun!! I'm cool!!!"


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

Purkeypilot said:


> Anyone that comes to this country and tries to make it like the shithole that they came from, needs to be deported back to said shithole.


Or at least California.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

Arizona Infidel said:


> You know, I'm glad you brought that to my attention. As many times as I've read the 2nd Amendment I've always missed the part after SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED that read "except if your in the private sector".


You can stay off their property, your rights do not supersede theirs. A property owner has the right to limit what is done on their property, and you have the right to not go there.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

jimb1972 said:


> You can stay off their property, your rights do not supersede theirs. A property owner has the right to limit what is done on their property, and you have the right to not go there.


And which amendment is that?


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Think he means, ," I don''t want your dog crapping in my yard", and a business that doesn't allow firearms. They have the right to do so, and you have the right to not to give them your business. Big companies have been known to back peddle on policies when it hits them where it hurts...the pocket book. my .02


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

Yes we are talking about a business. So, how does a business get the "right" to infringe on a civil right? The answer is they don't. They can not have white only lunch counters and drinking fountains, they can not refuse to bake a cake for a gay, they can not refuse service to Christians. So where do we get this idea that it's OK to discriminate against the civil rights of someone bearing arms? The fact is a business that offers service to the PUBLIC can not violate your civil rights, and the right to have and bear arms is a civil right.


----------



## SAR-1L (Mar 13, 2013)

bigdogbuc said:


> I scrub my balls SAR. Thoroughly.


Somehow, I always knew you were a good man doc. lol


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

SAR-1L said:


> Somehow, I always knew you were a good man doc. lol


But does he use a wire brush?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Arizona Infidel said:


> Yes we are talking about a business. So, how does a business get the "right" to infringe on a civil right? The answer is they don't. They can not have white only lunch counters and drinking fountains, they can not refuse to bake a cake for a gay, they can not refuse service to Christians. So where do we get this idea that it's OK to discriminate against the civil rights of someone bearing arms? The fact is a business that offers service to the PUBLIC can not violate your civil rights, and the right to have and bear arms is a civil right.


The right to keep and bear arms is most certainly *NOT* a civil right.
A civil(legal) right is a right *granted* to a person by law.
Any right that can be granted by law can be taken away by law.
Do you believe your right to bear arms is susceptible to be legally stricken?
I'd venture a guess that you don't.

The right to keep and bear arms is an extension of the most basic of "natural" rights. The right to life.
You have a right to live, and a right to protect your life from anyone who wishes to take it from you.
The firearm is an extension of this, as it is currently the most effective tool to ensure one's protection of life.
However, along with the right to life, you also enjoy the right to liberty.
Due to the fact that you perform "work", your labor grants you the right to property, the physical embodiment of your labor.
If you have a right to property through your work, NOBODY has the authority to overstep YOUR own where your rights are concerned.
The very essence of what a business is, is the right of a property owner to do with their business as they choose.
The fact that courts have defecated on this right is of little issue. Courts are ruled by men, and men are fallible.
Your right to possess a firearm ends when you enter MY property.
Again, the firearm is only an EXTENSION of your right to live, it is not your life itself.
I am forbidden from taking your life, simply because you are on my property (unless warranted), but I can forbid you from bringing with you anything I deem offensive.
This is because my actual natural right to property supersedes your extension of your right to life, but nor your life itself.

Any business forced to perform an act they abhor is at the mercy of a tyrannical system, not justice.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> The right to keep and bear arms is most certainly *NOT* a civil right.
> A civil(legal) right is a right *granted* to a person by law.
> Any right that can be granted by law can be taken away by law.
> Do you believe your right to bear arms is susceptible to be legally stricken?
> ...


 The 2nd amendment is written affirmation of a Natural law making it a civil right. When you decide to open your private property to the public you give up certain PRIVATE property rights. So you have no right to deny my the right to defend my life or property. If you did then there would be an exception after SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. 
Maybe the legal definition of SHALL might help


> The word 'Shall' has the following meanings:
> 
> An imperative command; has a duty to or is required to. For example, the notice shall be sent within 30 days. Usually 'shall' used here is in the mandatory sense.
> Should . Courts often interpret shall as should. For example, all claimants shall request mediation.
> ...


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

dsdmmat said:


> Yet somehow it is fine for the gun grabbers to punch you in the face with lies about statisitics and how easy it is to get a machine gun?
> I get BDBs point and I *do not *go out of my way to shove my opinion down someones throat, but at the same time I will not back away from a conversation about weapons with a gun grabber, just because they are armed with fantasies about utopia and how I am either a wimp or a want to be murderer because I choose to cary a gun. But at the same time I do not care what their opinion is because it is either pointless or futile to care about changing their minds.


I understand completely. I won't walk away from conversation either. But when a bunch of guys rally with shotguns and rifles slung about or congregate at Starbucks, it causes the idiots that lie to us about statistics to lie even more. I agree with your entire post here dsd, and I don't think any part of it is off base. I don't think their rallying is wrong, I just don't think it's helping.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Arizona Infidel said:


> The 2nd amendment is written affirmation of a Natural law making it a civil right. When you decide to open your private property to the public you give up certain PRIVATE property rights. So you have no right to deny my the right to defend my life or property. If you did then there would be an exception after SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
> Maybe the legal definition of SHALL might help


Careful with your wording there. An affirmation of a natural right is simply that. It does not *grant* a civil right. Otherwise, you are arguing that your right to keep and bear arms can be taken away from you, as it is nothing more than legal affirmation to be revoked at the will of the legislature.

Your entire argument is hinged upon the incorrect understanding that the constitution is written to affect any entity.
The simple truth is, it is ONLY to constrain the government from infringing on you.
That is all.
The government MUST respect your rights, be they implicit natural ones, or explicit written ones.
As for the rest, we don't have to at all.

Case in point, the government cannot shut down your "freedom of speech", but the moderator of this *PUBLIC* site most certainly can.

EDIT:
As for your argument concerning the definition of "SHALL", you and I are in agreement.
But, while you argue about private property owners doing this or that, what are you doing about every encroachment against your 2nd amendment rights by the actual entity the constitution is intended to limit?
Every single "National Firearms Act", and "Brady Bill", and "ban" every passed by congress has stomped on what we agree "SHALL" not be infringed upon... and yet here we sit, bickering over a business owner's rights.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> Careful with your wording there. An affirmation of a natural right is simply that. It does not *grant* a civil right. Otherwise, you are arguing that your right to keep and bear arms can be taken away from you, as it is nothing more than legal affirmation to be revoked at the will of the legislature.
> 
> Your entire argument is hinged upon the incorrect understanding that the constitution is written to affect any entity.
> The simple truth is, it is ONLY to constrain the government from infringing on you.
> ...


And there you have it. You believe the Constitution is only to restrain the govt. 
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it is written to affect ALL. 
So, you have already conceded that the right to have and bear arms is a Godgiven right. You still may not infringe upon my right because you are not above God. 
You have the God given right to own property. No man can take that right from you. But you don't have a right from God to do anything you wish on that property.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Arizona Infidel said:


> And there you have it. You believe the Constitution is only to restrain the govt.
> The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it is written to affect ALL.
> So, you have already conceded that the right to have and bear arms is a Godgiven right. You still may not infringe upon my right because you are not above God.
> You have the God given right to own property. No man can take that right from you. But you don't have a right from God to do anything you wish on that property.


The constitution *IS* to define and restrain the government.
The "supreme law of the land" is meant to dictate that no law written can supersede the constitution, whether state or local.
It does NOT mean private citizens must adhere to it.
I did not say that the right to have a firearm is God-given.
I said your right to life is a natural one, and the right to a firearm is an extension of it.
As for a "God-given" right to property, according to the bible, man was given total dominion over the land and the animals.
So technically, I *can* do what I wish with it.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

And that is why I retain my right to have and bear arms so I am able to defend myself while on your property. You erroneously think the Constitution only pertains to the Govt. (Please, post documents from the founding fathers of this country to support that viewpoint.) so you believe you have the right to give me a body cavity search if I am on your property. I have the right to be secure on my person from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that includes from you.
Pervert.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

NO ONE has the RIGHT to bring a firearm onto someone's private property. Plain and simple. Argue all you want with whatever simplistic logic you want, you are wrong. Your right does not supersede the property rights of someone else. In any part of the United States, if a property owner makes clear that he doesn't permit firearms on his property or in his business and you do it any way, you can and SHOULD be arrested. Don't like it? Don't go there.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

To everyone who feels that you have a right to bear arms "wherever and whenever" you want, go to the airport or the courthouse, try to make your way past security screening with said firearm and let us know how that works out for you. Also include your inmate number with your address so we can write you. Because it is clear that you either don't understand the laws, or you're full of hot air just for the sake of being full of hot air. 

Challenge on.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

A store owner or any private property owner can prevent weapons on their property.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

bigdogbuc said:


> To everyone who feels that you have a right to bear arms "wherever and whenever" you want, go to the airport or the courthouse, try to make your way past security screening with said firearm and let us know how that works out for you. Also include your inmate number with your address so we can write you. Because it is clear that you either don't understand the laws, or you're full of hot air just for the sake of being full of hot air.
> 
> Challenge on.


Just because a law was passed that infringes upon my rights doesn't make it a legal law.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Lawfully private property is controlled by the property owner. When you come on my property, you either have my permission or you are committing a crime.

A store is open to the public. It is *public access property* and that differs from *private property* - *even though it is privately owned the owner has opened it to use by the public*. The owner has the right to ask an individual to leave but it is unlawful to say that nobody can carry weapons on the property. (I know that some states, counties, cities and towns give that power to the owner but it is still unlawful) In Washington state the sign on the store front that says "NO GUNS" means absolutely nothing. I can walk in with a concealed pistol, a rifle slung on my back or with a wheel gun strapped to my hip and I have not broken any laws. If the owner comes over and tells me to leave then I am bound to do so by the law - not by the sign. The state makes the laws on guns in Washington and those laws supersede all other STRICTER laws or orders.

In Washington the second amendment is still in effect. If it isn't where you live then you should do something about it.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

csi-tech said:


> A store owner or any private property owner can prevent weapons on their property.


 No they can't


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

On private property, yes they can restrict firearms or most anything they want. But there is a difference, legally, between private property and public access property. A store is public access property and the owner cannot lawfully restrict firearms upon that public access property. It might even be legal but it is unlawful.

My property rights allow me to restrict what you can have on my private property - even if it is your right to keep and bear arms you cannot do it on my private property without my permission.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

Arizona Infidel said:


> Just because a law was passed that infringes upon my rights doesn't make it a legal law.


But it will put you in jail all the same Az.


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

bigdogbuc said:


> But it will put you in jail all the same Az.


This is the truth.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

The more laws a society has the more corrupt the society is...


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

PaulS said:


> On private property, yes they can restrict firearms or most anything they want. But there is a difference, legally, between private property and public access property. A store is public access property and the owner cannot lawfully restrict firearms upon that public access property. It might even be legal but it is unlawful.
> 
> My property rights allow me to restrict what you can have on my private property - even if it is your right to keep and bear arms you cannot do it on my private property without my permission.


That is what the discussion is about. Public access property. Private property, ya. I can refuse to let you on my property because you are black, gay stupid, or for whatever other reason.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

bigdogbuc said:


> But it will put you in jail all the same Az.


Gee. Your telling me we are living under tyranny? Well no shit.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Arizona Infidel said:


> That is what the discussion is about. Public access property. Private property, ya. I can refuse to let you on my property because you are black, gay stupid, or for whatever other reason.


That sounds like a change of argument.
We were clearly discussing private property, and you flat out stated that I could NOT restrict your carrying of arms on MY property.
It seems you've tweaked that opinion.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Arizona Infidel said:


> And that is why I retain my right to have and bear arms so I am able to defend myself while on your property. You erroneously think the Constitution only pertains to the Govt. (Please, post documents from the founding fathers of this country to support that viewpoint.) so you believe you have the right to give me a body cavity search if I am on your property. I have the right to be secure on my person from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that includes from you.
> Pervert.


I have no need to provide any document to support my viewpoint, as my viewpoint is the legal definition of a constitution.
A constitution's purpose is to define a government, and enumerate powers to it.
It is written SOLELY to grant specific powers to the government, and state flat out what it can and cannot do.
It does NOT apply directly to citizens.
Citizens are bound by laws. Those laws, written by a government, must adhere to the constitution.

You would be the one that needs to provide evidence of your view, which opposes 200+ years of precedent on the issue.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> That sounds like a change of argument.
> We were clearly discussing private property, and you flat out stated that I could NOT restrict your carrying of arms on MY property.
> It seems you've tweaked that opinion.


No. We were originally talking about open carry rallies. This morphed into a discussion of the open carry protests at businesses like Starbucks and Chipotle. The discussion was never about holding an open carry rally in your kitchen.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Arizona Infidel said:


> No. We were originally talking about open carry rallies. This morphed into a discussion of the open carry protests at businesses like Starbucks and Chipotle. The discussion was never about holding an open carry rally in your kitchen.





Arizona Infidel said:


> And that is why I retain my right to have and bear arms so I am able to defend myself while on your property.


Your words, not mine.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I have no need to provide any document to support my viewpoint, as my viewpoint is the legal definition of a constitution.
> A constitution's purpose is to define a government, and enumerate powers to it.
> It is written SOLELY to grant specific powers to the government, and state flat out what it can and cannot do.
> It does NOT apply directly to citizens.
> ...


Well stated Kauboy!


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

stepping back to the original question:
Open carry rallies need to show the peaceful armed citizens exercising their rights. No, they are not hurting the second amendment by exercising it. We all need to exercise our rights if we really want to keep them as rights.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Regarding prowlers, juries might not like it if we shoot somebody just for skulking around our neck of the woods.
But if they point a gun at us or jump on top of us the jury might be more understanding..

_*"The right of self defense is the first law of nature"- St. George Tucker (1752-1827) American judge and militiaman*_


----------



## SAR-1L (Mar 13, 2013)

Target bans guns from it stores: BBC News - Target bans guns from its stores after demonstration

Thank you rifle toting morons of the USA. Now I am unable to carry my pistol in a place
I often shop with my fiance, which means I won't shop there, which means she will go
alone, which means she is unprotected.

****ING IDIOTS running around with rifles scaring the shit out of people, is why we won't
even need Obama to take our guns, if this keeps up we won't be allowed to have a firearm
inside any business.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

SAR-1L said:


> Target bans guns from it stores: BBC News - Target bans guns from its stores after demonstration
> 
> Thank you rifle toting morons of the USA. Now I am unable to carry my pistol in a place
> I often shop with my fiance, which means I won't shop there, which means she will go
> ...


They can "request" all they like.
As far as Texas goes, that isn't sufficient "notice" to me, and therefore I can ignore it, and continue to carry concealed.
If they want to restrict me, they have to follow the law, just like everyone else.
Check your laws in CO. You might be surprised.

Most businesses will boast a "no guns" policy, but for whatever reason, never actually affect such a policy legally.
I remain optimistic about this.
I have no evidence to support this, but since the effort to enforce it legally would be cheap, yet they refuse to do it, I can only assume they don't actually wish to ban all guns.
They put up a big show for the uninformed, and then never actually restrict.
A "no guns" sign, in Texas, can legally keep me from bringing in a visible long arm, but it won't legally keep me from carrying a concealed handgun.
I like to think it's their little "wink and nod" to sane law-abiding citizens.
Maybe I'm naive.


----------



## SAR-1L (Mar 13, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> They can "request" all they like.
> As far as Texas goes, that isn't sufficient "notice" to me, and therefore I can ignore it, and continue to carry concealed.
> If they want to restrict me, they have to follow the law, just like everyone else.
> Check your laws in CO. You might be surprised.
> ...


Well, I can leave if they request and play dumb to the news.

I do know that both malls here have called the cops and
had the police notify the person, then escort them off the property
after hassling the guy with questions and pretty much
all around being ass holes about why the guy has a pistol.

Luckily I have not had this experience, but I know several
of the officers here are dicks, and care more about authority
than respecting civilian rights.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

SAR-1L said:


> Well, I can leave if they request and play dumb to the news.
> 
> I do know that both malls here have called the cops and
> had the police notify the person, then escort them off the property
> ...


How did anyone in the mall know he had a pistol?
Is open carry legal in CO?


----------



## SAR-1L (Mar 13, 2013)

Yes it is open and concealed but both are banned in Denver.
and I can't conceal carry atm cause it takes up to three months
to get your ccw permit back if everything goes through. It has
been atleast 1 1/2 so far.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Ah, I see.
How can a city override a state law?
When you say "both are banned in Denver", is that a city ordinance?

In Texas, the only way to "ban" it is to use the laid out method established in state law.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

In Washington A store can put up all the signs they want but it is still legal to enter the store with a gun. They can ask you to leave but they have to ask each individual each time. Even restaurants that serve alcohol can't ban guns. Only federal offices and court houses are no gun zones. I can carry my concealed weapon onto school grounds and into the school as long as I am picking up or dropping off kids that are family members.

Washington, I am learning has better gun laws than most other states - except when it comes to guns that require federal permits to own.... No class three firearms allowed in Washington.


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

This is not directed at anyone in particular; it's just an overhead statement;

The easiest way to prevent a headache and avoid all this silly crap with signs, etc., it to *conceal* your weapons, and go about your business like normal.

There have been so many people who just can't get off the soap box about how it "isn't right that open carry hurts the cause. It should not matter" etc, etc. The truth is, is that a lot of people in today's society ARE scared at the sight of guns. Period. People have become brain dead and oblivious due to modern lifestyle, the media, etc. And in the end, these guys that open carry at rallies aren't going to make these people comfortable with it. "Shock Therapy" will not work. The only way these baby sheep are going to get comfortable with and support guns and gun rights, is to personally decide to take interest. It will be up to them, not up to some rally partaker.

To those that want to be stubborn about it, no one can stop you, but in the end, I believe you will eventually realize that you are just creating a pain in the ass headache for YOURSELF.


----------



## SAR-1L (Mar 13, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> Ah, I see.
> How can a city override a state law?
> When you say "both are banned in Denver", is that a city ordinance?
> 
> In Texas, the only way to "ban" it is to use the laid out method established in state law.


I made a mistake only open carry is banned in Denver, 
concealed carry is allowed as long as you have a concealed carry permit.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Stupid question- why is open carry legal but *concealed carry* is illegal in some states?
I mean, a pistol in a concealed holster ain't going to scare the public, so why do the gun laws have a beef with concealed carry?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

There is a permitting process one must go through so that criminals don't conceal their guns...... it doesn't work. Someone forget to inform the law makers that criminals don't pay attention to laws - that is what makes them criminals in the first place. Most states have a concealed carry permitting process - as a matter of fact I think all the states do now.


----------



## omegabrock (Jun 16, 2014)

target made a public statement earlier. they said they will continue to follow local laws but they "ask" that people don't bring them in. they will post signs asking for no firearms but it is NOT a ban because they are NOT prohibiting firearms. local laws apply


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

omegabrock said:


> target made a public statement earlier. they said they will continue to follow local laws but they "ask" that people don't bring them in. they will post signs asking for no firearms but it is NOT a ban because they are NOT prohibiting firearms. local laws apply


This should not be a problem in Florida. Open carry is prohibited by law already. And as far as a place of business having a posted No Guns policy all they can do is ask you to leave if they even can discern you are carrying concealed. "No Guns" does not carry force of law here like some states.


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

PaulS said:


> There is a permitting process one must go through so that criminals don't conceal their guns...... it doesn't work. Someone forget to inform the law makers that criminals don't pay attention to laws - that is what makes them criminals in the first place. Most states have a concealed carry permitting process - as a matter of fact I think all the states do now.


SO true! Every facet of making more strict firearms laws is completely illogical and emotion driven. Good post Paul


----------



## bgreed (Feb 26, 2014)

I know I'm late to this discussion. I understand that the sheep get all flustered when they see a gun tough beans live in the real world. When I owned a gun store I carried a cocked and locked 1911 invariably I would have someone (usually female) come up to me and ask politely (do you know the hammer is back on you gun?)

As far as carrying rifles around, any of you ever been to Israel? There just about every third person is walking around with a M16 (not an AR 15) a Uzi, Galil, M1 carbine etc. and no one thinks a thing about it. Heck I've even been in churches there where they have M16's racked under the pews. My point is that the more people would see firearms carried on the streets the less sensitive they would be to seeing them. In other words the novelty would wear off. So I say more open carry the better. Let the sheep scream they'll only do it for a while and when there is no longer any reaction they find something else to bleat about.


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

bgreed said:


> I know I'm late to this discussion. I understand that the sheep get all flustered when they see a gun tough beans live in the real world. When I owned a gun store I carried a cocked and locked 1911 invariably I would have someone (usually female) come up to me and ask politely (do you know the hammer is back on you gun?)
> 
> As far as carrying rifles around, any of you ever been to Israel? There just about every third person is walking around with a M16 (not an AR 15) a Uzi, Galil, M1 carbine etc. and no one thinks a thing about it. Heck I've even been in churches there where they have M16's racked under the pews. My point is that the more people would see firearms carried on the streets the less sensitive they would be to seeing them. In other words the novelty would wear off. So I say more open carry the better. Let the sheep scream they'll only do it for a while and when there is no longer any reaction they find something else to bleat about.


I agree 100% bgreed! The problem is just as you say though; live in the real world. As much as it sucks, this is what our society has become! And as far as people asking you if you knew that hammer was cocked on your 1911; that annoyed the hell out of ME to read!!! :lol:


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

I also want to add real quick; I could personally give a s**t less if I offend or fluster someone by them seeing my gun. My point it, I save myself the un-needed headache and just conceal it. I have more important things to do, and don't want to be bothered by the idiots.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Purkeypilot said:


> I also want to add real quick; I could personally give a s**t less if I offend or fluster someone by them seeing my gun. My point it, I save myself the un-needed headache and just conceal it. I have more important things to do, and don't want to be bothered by the idiots.


The sheepdog cares not what the sheep think!


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

dsdmmat said:


> The sheepdog cares not what the sheep think!


YES! Well said dsd! Ya, I could care less, though I do prefer to remain a sentinel of sorts until the Wolf comes along.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> Your words, not mine.


#1


Arizona Infidel said:


> Yes we are talking about a business.


#2


Arizona Infidel said:


> When you decide to open your private property to the public


Yes. My words. In fact, your FIRST POST in this thread you quoted #1. Are you done playing your internet troll gotcha games now? I hope so, cause I'm done win you.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

bgreed said:


> I know I'm late to this discussion. I understand that the sheep get all flustered when they see a gun tough beans live in the real world. When I owned a gun store I carried a cocked and locked 1911 invariably I would have someone (usually female) come up to me and ask politely (do you know the hammer is back on you gun?)
> 
> As far as carrying rifles around, any of you ever been to Israel? There just about every third person is walking around with a M16 (not an AR 15) a Uzi, Galil, M1 carbine etc. and no one thinks a thing about it. Heck I've even been in churches there where they have M16's racked under the pews. My point is that the more people would see firearms carried on the streets the less sensitive they would be to seeing them. In other words the novelty would wear off. So I say more open carry the better. Let the sheep scream they'll only do it for a while and when there is no longer any reaction they find something else to bleat about.


God that is so true on deployment right now and the streets are literally packed with soldiers and police all toting galils the civies dont even batt an eye at it.

Acceptance is what some open carry people are after and you get acceptance by familiarity take profanity on TV at one time it was crazy for public TV now OMG Jeresy shores FRIGGIN REALLY If everyone that owned a gun open carried for 5 days straight gun control wouldnt be a hot button issue "he who apologizes first condemns himself". Its hard for me to take obese cops seriously what a joke.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Arizona Infidel said:


> #1
> 
> #2
> Yes. My words. In fact, your FIRST POST in this thread you quoted #1. Are you done playing your internet troll gotcha games now? I hope so, cause I'm done win you.


It wasn't a gotcha game. I was correcting false information. Other members supported my correction. You altered your words later, and I was finalizing the discussion with a clarifying question. You then chose to revert, and claim yet again, that I don't have the right to restrict your ability to carry on my property. Whether private property is open to the public or not is irrelevant, as Paul pointed out.
Just because you end up being wrong on the internet doesn't mean others are trolls.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

I'm starting to figure out you are delusional.



Kauboy said:


> It wasn't a gotcha game. I was correcting false information. Other members supported my correction. You altered your words later, and I was finalizing the discussion with a clarifying question. You then chose to revert, and claim yet again, that I don't have the right to restrict your ability to carry on my property. Whether private property is open to the public or not is irrelevant, as Paul pointed out.
> Just because you end up being wrong on the internet doesn't mean others are trolls.





PaulS said:


> Lawfully private property is controlled by the property owner. When you come on my property, you either have my permission or you are committing a crime.
> 
> A store is open to the public. It is *public access property* and that differs from *private property* - *even though it is privately owned the owner has opened it to use by the public*. The owner has the right to ask an individual to leave but it is unlawful to say that nobody can carry weapons on the property. (I know that some states, counties, cities and towns give that power to the owner but it is still unlawful) In Washington state the sign on the store front that says "NO GUNS" means absolutely nothing. I can walk in with a concealed pistol, a rifle slung on my back or with a wheel gun strapped to my hip and I have not broken any laws. If the owner comes over and tells me to leave then I am bound to do so by the law - not by the sign. The state makes the laws on guns in Washington and those laws supersede all other STRICTER laws or orders.
> 
> In Washington the second amendment is still in effect. If it isn't where you live then you should do something about it.


It doesn't sound like he agrees with you to me. 
Also, let's address this idea you have that your right because some people agree with you. This isn't Obama math where 2+2=5 if the collective is in agreement. It equals 4. And just because some people agree with you doesn't make you right. Mao, PolPot, Lenin,Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler all had people that agreed with them. That didnt make them right. 
And many people don't like or respect the 2nd amendment. Even that guy in your Avatar disliked the 2nd amendment. That might explain your viewpoint.
You are wrong.


----------



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

I can sort of see both sides on this one.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

> "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that &#8230; it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; &#8230; "
> Thomas Jefferson





> A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
> --- Thomas Jefferson





> "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
> Patrick Henry





> "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> Richard Henry Lee





> "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside &#8230; Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
> Thomas Paine





> "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence &#8230; from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable &#8230; the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
> George Washington


I don't know, but it looks to me like the intent was for the people to be armed at all times. 
So who do I listen to? A Texas Kauboy? Or all those guys? 
The intent of "shall not be infringed" was just that. That's why it just says "shall not be infringed" unlike the 1st amendment which says "CONGRESS shall make no law......................"
I believe we can end this discussion. You have a couple wanna be little fascists that agree with you, I have the founding fathers. 
You are wrong.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Sir , you ask the wrong question. We should be asking why we even have to have the rally to support a right that should not be in question to start with.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Arizona Infidel said:


> I don't know, but it looks to me like the intent was for the people to be armed at all times.
> So who do I listen to? A Texas Kauboy? Or all those guys?
> The intent of "shall not be infringed" was just that. That's why it just says "shall not be infringed" unlike the 1st amendment which says "CONGRESS shall make no law......................"
> I believe we can end this discussion. You have a couple wanna be little fascists that agree with you, I have the founding fathers.
> You are wrong.


Not a single quote you can EVER find from any contributor to the constitution will EVER state that your 2nd amendment right oversteps my private property rights.
Period. 
I don't give a rip who you listen to.
You wholly and completely misunderstand what "rights" are.
Yours NEVER supersede mine. If I own the land, that is *IT*.
You do what I say, how I say, or you LEAVE. *PERIOD.*

The Constitution restrains the government.
Your lack of understanding about this BASIC truth is astonishing.


----------



## just mike (Jun 25, 2014)

Carry whatever you want on your own property- but I have a problem with open carry of long guns in public areas. In my mind I see pistols and revolvers as defensive arms and long guns as offensive arms. We are not in Israel and terrorists are not at present living within our borders and attacking from within(subject to change at any time). The time for open carry of long guns may come but it is not now.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

just mike said:


> Carry whatever you want on your own property- but I have a problem with open carry of long guns in public areas. In my mind I see pistols and revolvers as defensive arms and long guns as offensive arms. We are not in Israel and terrorists are not at present living within our borders and attacking from within(subject to change at any time). The time for open carry of long guns may come but it is not now.


They aren't carrying long arms in order to gain acceptance of carrying long arms.
They carry firearms of one type openly to point out the hypocrisy of disallowing open carry of another type.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

AI, Paul; you're splitting hairs when it comes to private property vs. legal right to carry. 

We have a legal right to carry. Well, a lot of places we do anyway. If a store is privately owned, but open for public access, I will say yes, you have a right to carry in that facility, whether they want you to or not. As Paul is aware, our state is a Preemptive State and holds ALL authority regarding the regulation of firearms. What? Regulations? Yes. 

A store owners sign is not a law, it is a request. If they don't want firearms in their establishment, that is their right. Local jurisdictions may only determine where you may discharge that firearm. Most municipalities say you may not discharge a firearm in city limits, which is legal, however if you do so, you cannot be charged with a crime if it was in defense of self or others. Look at that, more restrictions. Hmmm. Interesting. 

However, if a "property owner" of property that is open to the public determines you are carrying and ask's you to leave, you must do so. Or you can be charged with Trespassing, Disorderly Conduct, stuff like that. Even if it is open to the public. 

My high school is "open to the public", but I trespass people all the time. And the prosecutors office says, repeatedly, I can do that. Because it is private property, even if open for public use. I've even trespassed parents who had students enrolled. Yep. We can do that. The property is owned by the school district. An idea a lot of people can't wrap their little minds around. "But my taxpayer dollars paid for this school." It sure did. It also paid for the judges chambers and that patrol car. Doesn't mean you can hop in it and go for a spin, or walk in to visit the judge whenever you want. There are limitations to our behavior. 

So in essence, hasn't that property owner just exercised their right, as the property owner, to keep your gun out of their store, thereby limiting where you can and can't carry? I think they did. And they had every legal right to do so. 

You see, the biggest problem we have here is some of us in this country want to be unreasonable. We want to get a case of the ass, then show it, to try and prove a point. And all that those type of people do is make a bad situation worse. Rather than walk up, see the sign and take your business elsewhere, nope, "I have a point to prove" and "I'm gonna shove it in your face to prove to you, that I am indeed the asshole you perceive me to be." 

'Cause that works. Right? 

And all they do is make responsible, key word RESPONSIBLE, law abiding gun owners look like them. Kind of the "One bad apple spoils the bunch". 

I remember when Seattle had a shooting at the Seattle Center during a public festival. The mayor and the city council tried to ban the carrying of firearms on all city owned property. Including sidewalks. Then a little city called Montesano tried to piggy back that saying that citizens of this state couldn't carry firearms in parks, banks or ANYWHERE that sold alcoholic beverages. Including 7-11. I wrote my state senator, as did a shit ton of other people, the attorney general got involved and said "Yeah. NO! You can't do that and you have no legal authority to do so. The state holds those rights exclusively. Your ordinances were repealed at the moment of inception and they are unenforceable." And the mayor had the gall to publicly say "I don't care what the state law is." Well, whatever makes you feel better chief. 

Those are the types of "infringements" you go after. The ones that violate existing law. Why would you waste your time going after the little pizzeria who doesn't want you, your gun, or your money? Unfortunately, a lot of people in this country don't have the common sense to know when to walk away, or when to stand and fight. They just want to fight everything for the sake of being confrontational. 

And I have no time for people like that, nor do I want to be associated with them.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

My friends are not only welcome but ENCOURAGED to open carry at Slippy Lodge.
My enemies, few as they may be, are not.


----------



## omegabrock (Jun 16, 2014)

just mike said:


> Carry whatever you want on your own property- but I have a problem with open carry of long guns in public areas. In my mind I see pistols and revolvers as defensive arms and long guns as offensive arms. We are not in Israel and terrorists are not at present living within our borders and attacking from within(subject to change at any time). The time for open carry of long guns may come but it is not now.


the time for open carry of long guns seems perfectly legit when the powers that be are trying to ban the open carry of long guns


----------



## omegabrock (Jun 16, 2014)

bigdogbuc said:


> AI, Paul; you're splitting hairs when it comes to private property vs. legal right to carry.
> 
> We have a legal right to carry. Well, a lot of places we do anyway. If a store is privately owned, but open for public access, I will say yes, you have a right to carry in that facility, whether they want you to or not. As Paul is aware, our state is a Preemptive State and holds ALL authority regarding the regulation of firearms. What? Regulations? Yes.
> 
> ...


this whole post is spot on. (i can't comment about the seattle issue because i am ignorant on that one).

what people also don't realize, constitutional or not, a law is still enforceable if the courts say it is and you have LEO's that are willing to enforce it. you can scream "this is unconstitutional" all you want from a cell. it doesnt change the fact that this is an issue that has to be addressed in a political manner. taking rights away from a nation doesnt happen over night. if they came in and said "from this point on, all firearms are illegal. from this point on, we are a communistic nation", there would be a total revolution that NO government could stop. that is not how it happens. it's little by little. take away the rights to carry long guns, people adapt. law abiding citizens give in. what happens next? all open carry is banned because of "safety feelings". a little more people give in and adapt. next "we are going to ban all 'tactical' firearms"...well guess what, a little more people give in and accept it. all of the while, you're still screaming "this is unconstitutional".

now, look at the people 'fighting' for our rights...going to places they KNOW it was cause a scene and cause people to be uneasy and a cause for concern. do you really think those people are going to back you up? no, they will vote to ban anything they can and push for their representatives to do so.

this little poem that i am sure everybody has heard one variation or another, but this is the original that can applied here

"First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me."


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

Yep. Slide on over to the thread "Interesting Police Tactic", watch the video and read my post there. It's a few down from my first post. I did a little research as he lives in my state. 

The guy was just found guilty for "Displaying a Weapon". He was open carrying, which is allowed in our state. He did nothing wrong legally. Nothing. The jury instructions from the judge even confirmed that "Carrying a semi-automatic rifle openly in public in the State of Washington is not illegal". 

He was convicted on the mere fact the AR was visible to the public and the presence of the rifle itself, not his actions, caused the witnesses "alarm".


----------



## MrsInor (Apr 15, 2013)

Hmmmm. If I started calling the police every time I see a liberal because he/she caused me to feel alarmed............


----------



## just mike (Jun 25, 2014)

Point taken


----------

