Had the police called on me

[PatriotPride]

So, in other words, shut up and go sit down at the back of the bus?

I'm sorry, people get all uptight when I compare carrying a gun to Civil rights, but it IS a Civil Right. One outlined in the 2nd Amendment.

As I posted above, would you tell a black man to stay out of a white area as to not offend?
Would you tell a gay person to hide who they are as to not offend?

Why is it that when someone argues that, for example, gays being more vocal, and more "out", that it is a good thing because the public gets used to the idea by more exposure, but when gun owners try to accomplish the same thing, we are offensive and should hide?

+1. I'll continue to exercise my right to carry openly, and if anyone disagrees with it or gets offended...oh well. Grow thicker skin.

 

[PatriotPride]

We're dodging the question on the table. Would you be concerned if it was a guy carrying a double bladed axe on his back? Answer that question please.

No. Why should I be? I feel that there's a point your struggling to make, but I don't quite understand what it is.

 

[Rookie]

None of the examples you cited involve a weapon or instrument designed (or could possibly) injure or end life. I think that is a big difference. C'mon people it's a firearm not a tonka truck. Some people are going to have issue with it.

Let me as you this question. If a guy walks around with a double bladed axe strapped to his back because that is his preferred method of self-defense, and also his right, would you be concerned?

Personally, I'd approach him and ask where he got the cool axe. Now if he had the axe in his hand, I would be concerned.

Strange, same approach if the guy was OC.

 

[PatriotPride]

No more ridiculous than stating I should worry about the feelings of some whining, crybaby namby-pamby somewhere, and change my lawful behavior because he can't handle seeing a gun.

No more ridiculous than calling the cops on somebody who's sitting somewhere with his family minding his own business and not bothering anybody.

But hey... it's all about THEIR feelings, right? God forbid some whining crybaby somewhere gets scared or offended unreasonably. We can't have that, now can we?

+1. That's exactly what it boils down to. There is no right to not be offended. There is a right to have and carry a firearm. When you look at it reasonably, there really is no room to argue.

 

[UncleMike]

No more ridiculous than stating I should worry about the feelings of some whining, crybaby namby-pamby somewhere, and change my lawful behavior because he can't handle seeing a gun.

No more ridiculous than calling the cops on somebody who's sitting somewhere with his family minding his own business and not bothering anybody.

But hey... it's all about THEIR feelings, right? God forbid some whining crybaby somewhere gets scared or offended unreasonably. We can't have that, now can we?

Believe me.
I'd never interfere with your right to be offensive.
After all, isn't that what freedom is all about?
Having the ability to trash other people's feelings so you can feel good???

 

[ljadayton]

Then how about this...

I don't like dogs.

Keep them out the hell of my neighborhood, and DON'T let me see you walking them near my house. They might get loose.

After all, you care about my feelings regarding something that's perfectly legal, right? And you'll change your behavior just to accommodate my ridiculous demands, right?

hater

 

[jbombelli]

Believe me.
I'd never interfere with your right to be offensive.
After all, isn't that what freedom is all about?
Having the ability to trash other people's feelings so you can feel good???

I don't go out of my way to trash other people's feelings. Including yours. I also will NOT change my lawful behavior, and stop doing something I like to do, just because some crybaby somewhere might not like it. I don't accommodate whining crybabies and their unreasonable demands, any more than I expect others to cater to MY unreasonable crybaby desires (not demands). If my legal activity offends somebody, that's too bad for him. If someone else's legal activity offends ME, that's too bad for me. I accept that some things that are legal will bother me. That's just how it is, and I accept that. And in the long run, I definitely feel better for it. Rights are rights, and they aren't subject to the whims of others.

 

[Rookie]

None of the examples you cited involve a weapon or instrument designed (or could possibly) injure or end life. I think that is a big difference. C'mon people it's a firearm not a tonka truck. Some people are going to have issue with it.

IMO, you are just as guilty of placing a negative light on guns as the antis out there. A gun is an inanimate object. It's at tool. It's no different than the knife, cell phone, pen, flashlight that you carry.
Anyone remember when cell phones first came out? I know where I lived that only drug dealers could afford them (with a few exceptions like doctors). If you were to see someone walking down the street, talking on a cell phone, your first thought was "drug dealer". Today, everyone has a cell phone. What used to be associated with criminals became common because people decided they wanted the convenience and didn't care that some stranger might look down their nose at them or some police officer might harass them because of some piece of plastic.

A gun is a tool. Nothing more.

 

[Roadie]

IMO, you are just as guilty of placing a negative light on guns as the antis out there. A gun is an inanimate object. It's at tool. It's no different than the knife, cell phone, pen, flashlight that you carry.
Anyone remember when cell phones first came out? I know where I lived that only drug dealers could afford them (with a few exceptions like doctors). If you were to see someone walking down the street, talking on a cell phone, your first thought was "drug dealer". Today, everyone has a cell phone. What used to be associated with criminals became common because people decided they wanted the convenience and didn't care that some stranger might look down their nose at them or some police officer might harass them because of some piece of plastic.

A gun is a tool. Nothing more.

..or pagers. If you had a pager, back in the day, you must be a drug dealer.

The negative connotation of carrying guns isn't naturally a part of "times changing", it is an artificial construct brought on by the Brady Group and their ilk.

It has even trickled into LEAs, who seem to teach that anyone carrying a gun is suspect, and should be stopped.

Saying as much made me realized kutnupe got us off his original comparison of OCing gun owners to criminals. hmmm

Bottom line here, for me is that if someone is doing something legally, and being harassed for it, to suggest that THEY change is insulting. That is really what is being suggested here. Don't OC, it makes people nervous, dont OC it makes LEO nervous, well I am sorry, nothing in the Constitution or laws that I have read, says that people have the right to not be nervous, or not be offended.

If we are doing nothing wrong, to suggest WE change is antithetical to the American ideal or freedom of expression(let alone the 2nd Amend).

 

[Kutnupe14]

A gun is an inanimate object. It's at tool. It's no different than the knife, cell phone, pen, flashlight that you carry.

And this is where we disagree. It sounds fine and dandy to state that, but you don't honestly believe that. No one iota. With the exception of the knife, a person carrying a pen, flashlight, or cell phone, in their hand, would probably not have your interest; however it's we replace it with a handgun, it would certainly snap you head. I challenge you to say otherwise. Can you explain why this is? ....unless a you honestly view a person walking with cell phone in their hand as being akin to a person walking with a gun in their hand.

 

[Rookie]

The simple fact is that guns aren't that awe inspiring to me. Maybe it's the way I was raised. Guns were a common thing, I had the family guns in an unlocked cabinet in my bedroom at the ripe old age of six. Getting a gun out was no different than getting a hammer. If I see sometime with a gun, I'm going to be curious as to the make, but no more curious as to what type of cell phone someone is talking on. If the person has their gun holstered (which is what the OP is about) than there is no reason for any reaction past simple curiosity.

 

[Roadie]

And this is where we disagree. It sounds fine and dandy to state that, but you don't honestly believe that. No one iota. With the exception of the knife, a person carrying a pen, flashlight, or cell phone, in their hand, would probably not have your interest; however it's we replace it with a handgun, it would certainly snap you head. I challenge you to say otherwise. Can you explain why this is? ....unless a you honestly view a person walking with cell phone in their hand as being akin to a person walking with a gun in their hand.

You keep changing the parameters of the discussion.

First we were talking about gun owners, being stopped for OCing.
Then it was comparing OCers to criminals in the back of your car.
Then it was OCers period.
NOW it is someone with gun in hand??

 

[Benny]

No more ridiculous than stating I should worry about the feelings of some whining, crybaby namby-pamby somewhere, and change my lawful behavior because he can't handle seeing a gun.

No more ridiculous than calling the cops on somebody who's sitting somewhere with his family minding his own business and not bothering anybody.

But hey... it's all about THEIR feelings, right? God forbid some whining crybaby somewhere gets scared or offended unreasonably. We can't have that, now can we?

You realize who you are talking to, right? He wholeheartedly believes that only those with a badge should have the privilege of OCing.

BTW, you disagreeing with him is cop-bashing, so be careful.

















Sorry, I should clarify...You disagreeing with him is cop-bashing in his delusional mind.

 

[E5RANGER375]

And this is where we disagree. It sounds fine and dandy to state that, but you don't honestly believe that. No one iota. With the exception of the knife, a person carrying a pen, flashlight, or cell phone, in their hand, would probably not have your interest; however it's we replace it with a handgun, it would certainly snap you head. I challenge you to say otherwise. Can you explain why this is? ....unless a you honestly view a person walking with cell phone in their hand as being akin to a person walking with a gun in their hand.

you should be worried about what you dont see. if someone who knows what they are doing wants to hurt someone you arent gonna see anything ever again.

also, a holstered pistol is A LOT different than one in a persons hand.

I dont think your an enemy of gun rights, so im not gonna beat you up, but if you get a man with a gun call, go check it out, and if all is good then GOOD WORK! you did your job and no laws were being broken and no one got hurt. you should love those calls.

now a guy with an axe on his back****** hmmmm, id probly ask him if he just came from a game of dungeons and dragons with scutter

 

[Kutnupe14]

The way I read it, you are making your point, while you ignore our contradicting points.

The fact you go on MWAG calls, wasting tax payer dollars, and your time, is not a reason to CC, it is a reason to educate the public!:

Educating the public.... yes, that would be ideal. I myself have attempted to do that and got a big fat complaint for my efforts (unfounded). Whose job is it to educate the public? If there's one thing I've learned in my time in LE, and a thought repeatedly revistited here on INGO, it's that people don't want suggestions/information from LEOs. Hell most don't even want to talk to us (again from what I've leaned here). Given that logic, it falls on you, citizen gun owner. As staunch as many of you are in the expression of your right, there are just as many that oppose it.

Now let's be clear, OC'ing, in itself, isn't educating anyone. You are more likely to be called a "gun nut" rather than a "patriot," and have the coppers called on you.

One has to articulate their stance to those that oppose or are wary of their "expression of rights." Anyone here done that in a forum where OC'ing wasn't an issue first? The problem is that you citzen gun owner are EPIC FAIL in educating the public. I'm a life long gun owner, and yet I have never, outside of random firearm forums seen any type of awareness concerning the right to OC extended to the general public. Not a flyer, not a news spot, not a magazine article.... nothing.

The only thing gun owners are doing is alienating the general (voting) public that already has concerns about gun owners. A public that has issue seeing a man with a sig strapped to his side as he eats at Applebees. Someone tell me what the issue is with covering up a firearm in a public place. Tell me without the repeated "it's my right to do so" mantra.
Those that have issue, sure, they can pound sand or grow thicker skin right? Well these thin skinned pansies can also vote. They can vote us into becoming the next Chicago or New York. So let's try to head that off. If you aren't committed to actually doing something to raise awareness about OC'ing (and again the at itself isn't doing anything) then what have you achieved?

By your logic back in the 60s it was OK to tell a black man to stay out of white neighborhoods because:

Holy false analogy Batman! With OC'ing, there is an alternative; CC. The color of someone's skin (Zartan and Michael Jackson excepted) there is no alternative. The only way you could draw that as a legitimate analogy, is if you could explain blacks were created with the intention of injuring or killing, that they lacked rational thought, and were more similar to objects rather than to other races.
That was a horrible comparison Roadie. I'm actually surprised you stated that as an legitimate argument.

 

[Rookie]

I dont think your an enemy of gun rights

I disagree. If you don't believe in "shall not be infringed" then you are on the other side of the fence.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You keep changing the parameters of the discussion.

First we were talking about gun owners, being stopped for OCing.
Then it was comparing OCers to criminals in the back of your car.
Then it was OCers period.
NOW it is someone with gun in hand??

The statement being contested, is that a gun is no different than a pen or cell phone. There were no parameters set. If the two are similar, then they are universally similar; pocket, car, hand.... how they are viewed should make no difference based on the premise.

 

[Roadie]

Educating the public.... yes, that would be ideal. I myself have attempted to do that and got a big fat complaint for my efforts (unfounded). Whose job is it to educate the public? If there's one thing I've learned in my time in LE, and a thought repeatedly revistited here on INGO, it's that people don't want suggestions/information from LEOs. Hell most don't even want to talk to us (again from what I've leaned here). Given that logic, it falls on you, citizen gun owner. As staunch as many of you are in the expression of your right, there are just as many that oppose it.

Now let's be clear, OC'ing, in itself, isn't educating anyone. You are more likely to be called a "gun nut" rather than a "patriot," and have the coppers called on you.

One has to articulate their stance to those that oppose or are wary of their "expression of rights." Anyone here done that in a forum where OC'ing wasn't an issue first? The problem is that you citzen gun owner are EPIC FAIL in educating the public. I'm a life long gun owner, and yet I have never, outside of random firearm forums seen any type of awareness concerning the right to OC extended to the general public. Not a flyer, not a news spot, not a magazine article.... nothing.

The only thing gun owners are doing is alienating the general (voting) public that already has concerns about gun owners. A public that has issue seeing a man with a sig strapped to his side as he eats at Applebees. Someone tell me what the issue is with covering up a firearm in a public place. Tell me without the repeated "it's my right to do so" mantra.
Those that have issue, sure, they can pound sand or grow thicker skin right? Well these thin skinned pansies can also vote. They can vote us into becoming the next Chicago or New York. So let's try to head that off. If you aren't committed to actually doing something to raise awareness about OC'ing (and again the at itself isn't doing anything) then what have you achieved?



Holy false analogy Batman! With OC'ing, there is an alternative; CC. The color of someone's skin (Zartan and Michael Jackson excepted) there is no alternative. The only way you could draw that as a legitimate analogy, is if you could explain blacks were created with the intention of injuring or killing, that they lacked rational thought, and were more similar to objects rather than to other races.
That was a horrible comparison Roadie. I'm actually surprised you stated that as an legitimate argument.

If you had read my previous posts, I also compared it to Muslims in a burka, kids dressed in "thug" gear, etc.

My comparison was quite rational, as we are discussing Rights here, are we not? We are also discussing changing preconceptions are we not?

The analogy stands, if you are open-minded enough to see it.

 

[Roadie]

The statement being contested, is that a gun is no different than a pen or cell phone. There were no parameters set. If the two are similar, then they are universally similar; pocket, car, hand.... how they are viewed should make no difference based on the premise.

Yes, that is the statement NOW being contested, I was referring to where this tangent started, and how it evolved to where we are now by you changing the conditions of the discussion.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You realize who you are talking to, right? He wholeheartedly believes that only those with a badge should have the privilege of OCing.

And you have come to this conclusion based on what? If you are so bold to make such a claim, I challenge you to back up (with my posting habits), that I believe that only those with a badge should be OC'ing.

BTW, you disagreeing with him is cop-bashing, so be careful.

Sorry, I should clarify...You disagreeing with him is cop-bashing in his delusional mind.

And now an insult? My delusional mind? Where did that come from? Within this thread, I have done nothing but extend courtesy. I can disagree and be civil at the same time. I would hope those familiar with posting habits recognize this. I again challegene you to find a single post where I have ever accused someone of "cop-bashing," because they disagreed with me. You can infer what you will, but do not attempt to paint me with a brush that lacks the substance to back your claims up.

Yeah, I'm out...