What do you say?

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Big Dawg wrote:

If everybody can see you are armed it only serves to let the bad guys know who to shoot first should they do so without warning of any kind. I couldn't care less what others think of my rightto carry and would rather be the one to survive when attacked without warning or provocation than one who shows whatI have for self defense. I have had a CC permit since 1984 when it became the law here and have attended many different social functions and not one person knew I was armed. I will/have joined many discussions concerning the right to carry but did so without any participants knowingI was armed. If you choose to open carry then that is your choice but it also makes you a primary target of any wannbe thugs who are looking to make a street rep for themselves. I fully support your right to open carry and am a LM of the NRA, NSSA, Georgia Carry Organization, and am a 100% Disabled US Army Veteran and will render assistance to you or anybody should the need arise butI will continue to CC as is my choice

OK - here it is again for the uninitiated.

Standard call to cite:

Show us one documented event in modern times, anywhere in the United States, where a legal, honest OCer (not LEO, security or military) has been preemptively taken out - just one.

Will it likely happen one day -probably - but when it does the resultant numerical ratio will look something like .000001%.

This challenge has stood the test of decades - so knock yourself out.

The closest anybody has come was one case in northern Va. that turned out to be a fraud.

This is a genuine urban myth and deserves a decent burial.


[line]
BTW - I fully concur that your method of carry is and should be your choice.

The most that any here will ask of others is that, however they carry, they do so responsibly.

Yata hey

 

[I always carry]

imported post

To each his own. Some people want to OC, others don't. Those of us who DO, WILL for their own convictions and desires. I want to change the minds of others but, respect their decision to NOT OC - even though I don't agree with it. I still have to respect it. They hopefully will respect mine in return. If they don't, I will not allow them to erode away, or contribute to MY / OUR "potential" loss (((if NOT exercised))). Changing the minds of others "for the better" usually takes time. We OC'ers are simply trying to speed up that process while exercising OUR RIGHT to do so. Just my opinion.

 

[EdwardNorton]

imported post

Well in Indiana where I live we are only allowed to carry a handgun that is concealed. However, you can clearly see that I am carrying one under my shirt tail. I have had many comment about it that do not carry a handgun and when given the opportunity to comment on it I tell them that I would rather know someone is "packing" than not knowing.

I also make the statement that if a criminal is coming into a place of business with the thought of robbing them or in some cases to shoot people randomly for what ever reason, this person would think twice if he were able to see several people packing handguns. This person would choose another place to go!

The sole purpose of Americans packing handguns is not so much that it is their constitutional right, but to be able to protect themselves in the event someone that who's intent is to cause harm to others.

With all of the shootings in schools, malls, restaurants & even churches I do not "leave home without my weapons". I say weapons because I pack a 44 on my hip and a 357 on my ankle. I pray that I never ever have to draw either from their holsters but if the need arises then I can do so.

I will add to the debate though, that I feel if someone applies for a handgun permit to carry one that these people should be required to take a safety & training course as part of the application requirements.


Gizmoe142 wrote:

SO i was wondering what do you say to private citizens who see you walking around with a OC firearm one your side?

When they ask, why you need a gun? What do you say?

What reasons do you give?

Just curious what others tell people, when they are confronted

 

[stainless1911]

imported post

Making requirements like that is a slippery slope! Such requirements will likely be supported and proposed by antis. And would be made difficult or impossible to find, or afford, and the requirements would be made impossible to acheive by the average shooter.

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

EdwardNorton wrote:

I will add to the debate though, that I feel if someone applies for a handgun permit to carry one that these people should be required to take a safety & training course as part of the application requirements.

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.

No, no, no.... it says exactly what it says. It is the people's responsibility for safety. Not a requirement from the government.

Welcome to the forum, Mr. Norton.

 

[EdwardNorton]

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

Making requirements like that is a slippery slope! Such requirements will likely be supported and proposed by antis. And would be made difficult or impossible to find, or afford, and the requirements would be made impossible to acheive by the average shooter.

Something like this may be supported by anti-gun activists but it is supported by those that support the right to carry a handgun. In my city you can take such a course for free. Yes that's correct I said FREE. It is sponsored by local law enforcement as well as local clubs. The only cost for the one taking this course is of course their ammunition.

If this is being done here then it can be done anywhere. This just shows the one packing the firearm is willing to carry it responsibly. This can do nothing but help support and keep our right to bear arms. I will add that only those whom intend to use their weapon irresponsibly would not take such a free course as this.

 

[stainless1911]

imported post

I would never take such a course, because I do not wish to fuel the ideas behind the dangers I listed earlier.

 

[EdwardNorton]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

EdwardNorton wrote:

I will add to the debate though, that I feel if someone applies for a handgun permit to carry one that these people should be required to take a safety & training course as part of the application requirements.

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.

No, no, no.... it says exactly what it says. It is the people's responsibility for safety. Not a requirement from the government.

Welcome to the forum, Mr. Norton.

First of all let me say thanks for the welcome! Now to respond to your comment. Great point that you made there but let me ask you this. If your life depended on it would you want someone that's had some basic training with their weapon or someone that only knows how to remove it from the holster?

As for me I'll chose the one with some training with their weapon. Getting some training is by no means an infringement on the constitutional right to bear arms. Or not in my opinion anyway, in my minds eye it just shows that they aer responsable enough to want to learn safety as well as the basics about how to use their weapon "If" the need arises.

Furthermore I would think that in the event an untrained person wielding around a loaded firearm during a time when they are excessively excited as well as scared out of their mind only puts the innocent bystanders in jeopardy do you not agree?

Thanks again for the welcome...

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

EdwardNorton wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

Making requirements like that is a slippery slope! Such requirements will likely be supported and proposed by antis. And would be made difficult or impossible to find, or afford, and the requirements would be made impossible to acheive by the average shooter.

Something like this may be supported by anti-gun activists but it is supported by those that support the right to carry a handgun. In my city you can take such a course for free. Yes that's correct I said FREE. It is sponsored by local law enforcement as well as local clubs. The only cost for the one taking this course is of course their ammunition.

If this is being done here then it can be done anywhere. This just shows the one packing the firearm is willing to carry it responsibly. This can do nothing but help support and keep our right to bear arms. I will add that only those whom intend to use their weapon irresponsibly would not take such a free course as this.

And soon only white liberals with connections to the democratic party will 'pass' this class.

Once again, it says '....shall not be infringed'

At the time of our nation's birth, there was rape, robbery, political enemies, irresponsibility, etc...

AND STILL, the Founding Father's did not see fit to require a free class to carry 'responsibly'....

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

EdwardNorton wrote:

gogodawgs wrote:

EdwardNorton wrote:

I will add to the debate though, that I feel if someone applies for a handgun permit to carry one that these people should be required to take a safety & training course as part of the application requirements.

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.

No, no, no.... it says exactly what it says. It is the people's responsibility for safety. Not a requirement from the government.

Welcome to the forum, Mr. Norton.

First of all let me say thanks for the welcome! Now to respond to your comment. Great point that you made there but let me ask you this. If your life depended on it would you want someone that's had some basic training with their weapon or someone that only knows how to remove it from the holster?

As for me I'll chose the one with some training with their weapon. Getting some training is by no means an infringement on the constitutional right to bear arms. Or not in my opinion anyway, in my minds eye it just shows that they aer responsable enough to want to learn safety as well as the basics about how to use their weapon "If" the need arises.

Furthermore I would think that in the event an untrained person wielding around a loaded firearm during a time when they are excessively excited as well as scared out of their mind only puts the innocent bystanders in jeopardy do you not agree?

Thanks again for the welcome...

False argument. My life does not depend on someone else who is untrained or trained, it depends on ME, I am a freeman and I am the only one responsible for my life.

God given unalienable rights are not subject to basic training.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

God given unalienable rights are not subject to basic training.

Basic training > more advanced training + permit to purchase + permit to carry, not here and not there. All restrictions and cutting at the tree of liberty, one nick at a time.

IMHO - none of these equates to "shall not be infringed."

We are where we are - it took us a long time to get here. It will take us a while longer to regain those rights taken from us in the name of safety - for that which might happen.

Yata hey

 

[EdwardNorton]

imported post

In all fairness the founding fathers of our great country did not face the things we face today nor was the population nearing 8 billion people either. There is no possible way for them to foresee how we all live today, thus the reason for constitutional amendments.

Well one of the great things about America is that we are allowed to speak about things we care about without fear of retribution or prosecution, so we agree to disagree on this topic. I am perfectly fine with that and I do not have to agree with others opinions to support the cause, for which I do 100%!

I look forward to the day that those of us that are licensed to carry can do so openly. I was looking at Indiana Statue and currently in our state you can openly carry in your vehicle only, but once you get out of that vehicle you better cover it up. That makes no sense to me but that's how it is for now.

Thanks for the stimulating comments and conversation people. I think I'll like it here!

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

EdwardNorton wrote:

In all fairness the founding fathers of our great country did not face the things we face today nor was the population nearing 8 billion people either. There is no possible way for them to foresee how we all live today, thus the reason for constitutional amendments.

Well one of the great things about America is that we are allowed to speak about things we care about without fear of retribution or prosecution, so we agree to disagree on this topic. I am perfectly fine with that and I do not have to agree with others opinions to support the cause, for which I do 100%!

I look forward to the day that those of us that are licensed to carry can do so openly. I was looking at Indiana Statue and currently in our state you can openly carry in your vehicle only, but once you get out of that vehicle you better cover it up. That makes no sense to me but that's how it is for now.

Thanks for the stimulating comments and conversation people. I think I'll like it here!

In Washington, where I live, we can Open Carry, with no license, permit or other piece of paper from the government.

As far as the founders, the genius is in how they wrote what they did. If you study what they did and how they wrote what they did, they did forsee where we are and where we will go. Otherwise the only free speach would be by a quill pen and print press. (the internet would not be a free speech zone!)

And yes we can all support the cause, but from time to time it takes some extremists to stir the pot. (And the Founders were extremeists and to many around the world they still are today!)

 

[stainless1911]

imported post

The internet is not a free speech zone. There are things that we will not say here, because those things can be used against us.

A permit is short for permission. We cannot tolerate any types of permits for anything at any time for any reason, if we beleive in "shall not be infringed. We simply cannot expect to call it a right, when we have to ask permission, or pay for, or prove, that we are qualified to use our rights.

 

[EdwardNorton]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote

In Washington, where I live, we can Open Carry, with no license, permit or other piece of paper from the government.

As far as the founders, the genius is in how they wrote what they did. If you study what they did and how they wrote what they did, they did forsee where we are and where we will go. Otherwise the only free speach would be by a quill pen and print press. (the internet would not be a free speach zone!

And yes we can all support the cause, but from time to time it takes some extremists to stir the pot. (And the Founders were extremeists and to many around the world they still are today!)

Ok a little off topic but the reason we have free speech to cover anything and everything (including the intranets followed by the internet & down to the 2007 US law stating that all email must be held for 7 years by your isp in accordance with the discovery law) is because congress and the house vote on and make amendments to the constitution.

The founding fathers had no clue to what was to be in 2010. Had they this mysterious genius and or insight then we would not be flooding the Supreme Courts in this land with all the BS that will eventually be amended into our constitution because the topics were not directly addressed or expressed by them to prevent it.

As you stated if not for amendments to the constitution then the only speech freedoms we have would be from the quill pen and parchment paper.

We do not change, it's the rest of the world that changes around us right? :lol:

 

[EdwardNorton]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

In Washington, where I live, we can Open Carry, with no license, permit or other piece of paper from the government.

Unfortunately we have those that do not require a permit to carry here as well, I believe that there called gang members ex-convicts & criminals.

All joking aside I would rather not have to have a permit in order to carry my weapon. I do not like the government knowing what I have nor where I keep it but it's either do it there way or loose my weapon when caught with it, pay a fine, spend a few thousand dollars on an attorney and sit in jail until which time the system deems its ok for me to get out.

I'm happy to know that there is such a place in America that does not require any documentation for carrying a personal protection weapon on ones self!

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

EdwardNorton wrote:

gogodawgs wrote

In Washington, where I live, we can Open Carry, with no license, permit or other piece of paper from the government.

As far as the founders, the genius is in how they wrote what they did. If you study what they did and how they wrote what they did, they did forsee where we are and where we will go. Otherwise the only free speach would be by a quill pen and print press. (the internet would not be a free speach zone!

And yes we can all support the cause, but from time to time it takes some extremists to stir the pot. (And the Founders were extremeists and to many around the world they still are today!)

Ok a little off topic but the reason we have free speech to cover anything and everything (including the intranets followed by the internet & down to the 2007 US law stating that all email must be held for 7 years by your isp in accordance with the discovery law) is because congress and the house vote on and make amendments to the constitution.

The founding fathers had no clue to what was to be in 2010. Had they this mysterious genius and or insight then we would not be flooding the Supreme Courts in this land with all the BS that will eventually be amended into our constitution because the topics were not directly addressed or expressed by them to prevent it.

As you stated if not for amendments to the constitution then the only speech freedoms we have would be from the quill pen and parchment paper.

We do not change, it's the rest of the world that changes around us right? :lol:

There are only 29 amendments. And the legislatures (three quarters) must approve the amendment.

What I believe you are refering to is case law. There is no amendment 'allowing' the internet or television. Neither the internet or television was created by the government, rather they were created by citizens.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

EdwardNorton wrote:

snip.........

The founding fathers had no clue to what was to be in 2010. Had they this mysterious genius and or insight then we would not be flooding the Supreme Courts in this land with all the BS that will eventually be amended into our constitution because the topics were not directly addressed or expressed by them to prevent it.

As you stated if not for amendments to the constitution then the only speech freedoms we have would be from the quill pen and parchment paper.

We do not change, it's the rest of the world that changes around us right? :lol:

Best to read the 10th Amendment - but one example of true genius.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://www.google.com/search?q=10th...oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGIC_en

Yata hey

 

[Liberal biased]

imported post

What do you do if things get impolite, and you actually have to make a decision whether to use the gun? Have any proponents on this board realistically approached whether or not you are prepared to become the criminal, simply because you are carrying?

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Liberal biased wrote:

What do you do if things get impolite, and you actually have to make a decision whether to use the gun? Have any proponents on this board realistically approached whether or not you are prepared to become the criminal, simply because you are carrying?

Current membership status with Brady Campaign and valid email address required prior to soliciting replies on this subject.

Yata hey