Open Carry Idiots

[Tnichols00]

Please read before you ridicule, once you read feel free to ridicule LOL

Savin Grace: Open Carry Idiots

Here is the text if you have trouble opening it.


Yes I said IDIOTS!!!
First off I believe you do have the right to carry any weapon of your choice anywhere you please for your own protection. I believe you should be able to do it without ridicule from groups like Moms Demand Action for gun sense or as I like to call them Moms Demand Ignorance!!

There are a bunch of great groups out there such as TexasOpenCarry and others who are fighting for a great cause. But please be careful about how you do this, our goal is to promote Pro Gun business's not turn them against us. Now lets look at this from a business perspective such as Starbucks and or Chipotle. These are large business's with stockholders and their main goal is bottom dollar for their stockholders. They have been using "Local Law" to stay out of the politics but when there is a possibility it will hurt their image to their stockholders they must take a position. To them the safest position is to not allow the guns in their stores. Right or wrong they feel its the best for business.

So Open Carry people please do this for all the rest of us open carry people who would like to get a burrito with our children on one side and our sidearm on the other...

GO TO LOCAL BUSINESS'S WHERE THE OWNER OF THAT BUSINESS IS PRO OPEN CARRY. YOU WILL BE WELCOME THERE AND BE ABLE TO POST TO SOCIAL MEDIA WITHOUT PISSING MOMS DEMAND IGNORANCE OFF AND GUESS WHAT...

The best part of all of this is since the owner is pro open carry if Moms Demand Ignorance or anyone else comes in and tries to cause a stir the owner will tell them to go shove it.

Remember this is a fight and in a fight we need tactics, once there are hundreds of local business's that are booming because of their stance then your point will have been made.


Happy Carrying to all of you legal men and women of the United States of America!

 

[possum_128]

Don't open! I did and over 50 windows opened, still trying to close them.

 

[CindyE]

Don't open! I did and over 50 windows opeded, still trying to close them.

A fake JAVA update came up on mine, so I couldn't read it all, either. What I did see made sense.

 

[Tnichols00]

Thats weird its just a google blogger site. Its opening fine for me, Sorry not sure how to fix it... Any suggestions?

I also added the text to the original post

 

[Mark 1911]

He makes a good point, sort of. I say "sort of" because there is a difference, at least in perception in the eyes of the non-gun literate and their reactions, between open carry of handguns versus open carry of rifles. He doesn't get into that, he just talks about "open carry", so he appears to address long guns and handguns as one category.

 

[88GT]

So the solution to the sheeple opposition to carrying firearm is to do it only on terms which they accept?

 

[Tnichols00]

I don't think its terms they accept but instead terms we can use to our advantage. I mean its not like we can say anymore "We carry AR15's, 1911's and glocks openly into starbucks and nobody is being shot"

But if we could say that or give examples of a demonstration that saved lives within certain places of business that would only help.

Remember we don't call them sheeple for no reason, and if all these big name business's are outlawing firearms they will think its ok to outlaw them everywhere.

I think the point of this is instead of going in like the british in the revolutionary war and lining up to be shot down lets go in like seal team six, with a plan of attack, goals along the way and a good end point.

When Wal Mart wanted to take over the US in terms of stores they didn't go into big cities competing with other big stores, they went into all the small cities, won them over and once they had the power to run the big cities they then went into them guns a blazing.

 

[ModernGunner]

The 'solution' is to stop being confrontational for no justifiable reason. Pro-2A folks don't seem to like it when Moms Demand Anti-Gun Lunacy (or whomever) get in the pro-gunners 'face'. Yet, SOME of the pro-2A folks, primarily OC'ers, make it a point to use the exact same tactics as the rabid, anti-gun loons. Do those tactics 'work'? Do they work on you, as a 2A supporter? So, is that 'smart'? Is that 'strategy'? Or, is it stupid?

'Newsflash!' for all the rabid "We have the RIGHT!" folks: the Second Amendment is NOT 'unlimited'. Neither is the First Amendment. Neither are any of the other rights guaranteed under the Constitution, as has been repeatedly demonstrated and upheld by the Courts. If one thinks the 2A is 'unlimited', then the burden is upon them to prove it. Good luck, 'cause law and history do not support that erroneous viewpoint. Not even snarky retorts of "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do 'sheeple' not understand?" will refute it.

The Founding Fathers, in constructing the 2nd Amendment, presumed those who kept and carried firearms to be responsible enough, trained enough, and smart enough to do so. That's part of the limitation of the Second Amendment. Sadly, time and again that presumption has been proven wrong. As it was in the Chipotle debacle.

The Second Amendment is a right guaranteed under the Constitution, within those limitations.

There is NO right to act irresponsibly.

 

[88GT]

I don't think its terms they accept but instead terms we can use to our advantage. I mean its not like we can say anymore "We carry AR15's, 1911's and glocks openly into starbucks and nobody is being shot"

But if we could say that or give examples of a demonstration that saved lives within certain places of business that would only help.

Remember we don't call them sheeple for no reason, and if all these big name business's are outlawing firearms they will think its ok to outlaw them everywhere.

I think the point of this is instead of going in like the british in the revolutionary war and lining up to be shot down lets go in like seal team six, with a plan of attack, goals along the way and a good end point.

When Wal Mart wanted to take over the US in terms of stores they didn't go into big cities competing with other big stores, they went into all the small cities, won them over and once they had the power to run the big cities they then went into them guns a blazing.

So, carry on the terms of people who want to limit the rights. I think that's what I said.

The 'solution' is to stop being confrontational for no justifiable reason.

The solution is to stop accepting the premise that anybody anywhere has any authority to limit the choices I make so long as those choices don't infringe on his rights. For some people, the simple act of OCing is confrontational in itself. I will not be manipulated into making decisions about my personal life because some other people don't want me to upset the apple cart.

I don't care if a business wants to prohibit firearms. I don't like the efforts to push businesses into a corner to make a public stand on OC and/or firearms. But only because I believe it is the business owner's prerogative to make whatever choice he wants. However, I will never condemn a man for exercising his rights. Ever. I understand that the efforts some of these OCers undertake actually backfires in terms of the number of businesses that don't prohibit firearms. But again. So what? It's private property. I can make a choice to vote with my wallet if I so choose. I generally don't though.

Pro-2A folks don't seem to like it when Moms Demand Anti-Gun Lunacy (or whomever) get in the pro-gunners 'face'. Yet, SOME of the pro-2A folks, primarily OC'ers, make it a point to use the exact same tactics as the rabid, anti-gun loons. Do those tactics 'work'? Do they work on you, as a 2A supporter? So, is that 'smart'? Is that 'strategy'? Or, is it stupid?

It's strategy. And depending on one's viewpoint, it may be stupid. I don't lose sleep over it.

'Newsflash!' for all the rabid "We have the RIGHT!" folks: the Second Amendment is NOT 'unlimited'. Neither is the First Amendment. Neither are any of the other rights guaranteed under the Constitution, as has been repeatedly demonstrated and upheld by the Courts. If one thinks the 2A is 'unlimited', then the burden is upon them to prove it. Good luck, 'cause law and history do not support that erroneous viewpoint. Not even snarky retorts of "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do 'sheeple' not understand?" will refute it.

Logical fallacy is fallacious. You do understand that a court's ruling only sets a precedent. It doesn't actually create a universal truth. Slavery was once legal too based on a court's ruling. Are you going to argue that slavery was acceptable on a moral level because the courts deemed it acceptable on a legal level?

The Founding Fathers, in constructing the 2nd Amendment, presumed those who kept and carried firearms to be responsible enough, trained enough, and smart enough to do so. That's part of the limitation of the Second Amendment. Sadly, time and again that presumption has been proven wrong. As it was in the Chipotle debacle.

Sort of. They never intended the feds (and probably not even the states) to be the arbiters of what was responsible, trained, and smart enough in order to exercise that right. The limitations were self-imposed by the people through a proper respect of their fellow man and his place in society. Or imposed by cultural standards that used to mean something. They would not support the "common sense" legislation limiting ownership and bearing of arms because some people weren't responsible, trained, or smart enough.

EDIT: The Chipotle issue is a private property issue. The Constitution and the reference to the FF is a legal issue involving the scope of authority and power government has to limit rights without mitigating circumstances (i.e. conviction for a crime). Do not confuse the two. Actions have consequences and parading around with a big scary rifle may have the consequence of decreasing the number of firearms-friendly businesses. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the authority or power of government to limit the right to do so in general.

The Second Amendment is a right guaranteed under the Constitution, within those limitations.

What limitations? My copy of the BoR doesn't seem to have that language? In all seriousness, if the use of a firearm isn't resulting in harm to another person, what limitations are necessary to be placed on the law-abiding? Name one firearm law that makes sense.

There is NO right to act irresponsibly.

Sure there is. Mr88GT does it all the time. I think what you mean to say is that there is no right to behave in a manner that causes harm to others and expect not to suffer the consequences.

 

[Lebowski]

People think private businesses should be used as the forefront of their campaigns and parading. It's not. Most businesses don't give a damn what you do until you're impacting them negatively. That's why Starbucks didn't care if you carried, or if you didn't. But people wanted to grow their e-peen. "Here hun, take a picture of me ordering a Chai Latte while I hold this shotgun! I'm going to post this on the internet later!"

I say, save your protest and open carry demonstration for the tax payer paid for and paved streets and sidewalks you paid for. Stop going into private businesses with your AK47 strapped to your back to make a 'statement'. Blah.

Open carry, conceal carry, do whatever. But understand that if you're one of those people in Starbucks, Chiplote, Wal-Mart, wherever with a friggin AK47 or shotgun on your back and you're doing it to make a 'statement'... you're doing more harm than good, I think. I think you'd be better off walking around town doing the same, or down some busy streets and sidewalks and not putting a private business in the position of having to make a decision to 'support' your right or 'deny' it. You'd more likely be stopped or questioned by common people, than people who are trying to shop or eat a damn meal with their family, and have a better platform to educate. Businesses are going to do whatever ends up losing them the least amount of money, which means if you keep doing it they're going to kindly ask you and everyone else to stop coming in. This will translate to the gun community as, "Boycott this store! They don't support our rights!", which is silly as they didn't care in the first place until you went in there and made their other customers feel uncomfortable with your attempt of using a private business as the platform for your demonstration.

Businesses exist to serve products, goods and services for profit. Not as a platform for demonstrations, campaigns, group statement making, etc.


For the selective readers, all I pretty much said above is: Just go about your business as usual, shop where you normally do. Carry a gun openly, or conceal it. If you want to have an open carry demonstration, however, do so in the public and not in a privately owned business. People walking down the street are more likely to be interested in your demonstration than someone trying to eat a meal or shop with their family.

 

[g00n24]

People think private businesses should be used as the forefront of their campaigns and parading. It's not. Most businesses don't give a damn what you do until you're impacting them negatively. That's why Starbucks didn't care if you carried, or if you didn't. But people wanted to grow their e-peen. "Here hun, take a picture of me ordering a Chai Latte while I hold this shotgun! I'm going to post this on the internet later!"

I say, save your protest and open carry demonstration for the tax payer paid for and paved streets and sidewalks you paid for. Stop going into private businesses with your AK47 strapped to your back to make a 'statement'. Blah.

Open carry, conceal carry, do whatever. But understand that if you're one of those people in Starbucks, Chiplote, Wal-Mart, wherever with a friggin AK47 or shotgun on your back and you're doing it to make a 'statement'... you're doing more harm than good, I think. I think you'd be better off walking around town doing the same, or down some busy streets and sidewalks and not putting a private business in the position of having to make a decision to 'support' your right or 'deny' it. You'd more likely be stopped or questioned by common people, than people who are trying to shop or eat a damn meal with their family, and have a better platform to educate. Businesses are going to do whatever ends up losing them the least amount of money, which means if you keep doing it they're going to kindly ask you and everyone else to stop coming in. This will translate to the gun community as, "Boycott this store! They don't support our rights!", which is silly as they didn't care in the first place until you went in there and made their other customers feel uncomfortable with your attempt of using a private business as the platform for your demonstration.

Businesses exist to serve products, goods and services for profit. Not as a platform for demonstrations, campaigns, group statement making, etc.


For the selective readers, all I pretty much said above is: Just go about your business as usual, shop where you normally do. Carry a gun openly, or conceal it. If you want to have an open carry demonstration, however, do so in the public and not in a privately owned business. People walking down the street are more likely to be interested in your demonstration than someone trying to eat a meal or shop with their family.

This!
Acting like asshat for the sake of acting like an asshat is clearly not working. You want to exercise your rights, then great, go on a public street and exercise your rights. I've done it. It's a great time. But going into privately owned businesses that state they want nothing to do with anyone's political views carrying long guns is just plain being an asshat. You make yourself look like an idiot, which makes the rest of us look like idiots. These companies exist to make money, not to support our viewpoints. If we force them to decide they will decide against us, because that is a much safer decision when it comes to their profit margins.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I don't care if a business wants to prohibit firearms. I don't like the efforts to push businesses into a corner to make a public stand on OC and/or firearms. But only because I believe it is the business owner's prerogative to make whatever choice he wants. However, I will never condemn a man for exercising his rights. Ever. I understand that the efforts some of these OCers undertake actually backfires in terms of the number of businesses that don't prohibit firearms. But again. So what? It's private property. I can make a choice to vote with my wallet if I so choose. I generally don't though.

Even if his choice causes problems down the line that further restricts your abilities? These rocket surgeons arent helping our cause, and are actually part of the problem. They are the 2A equivalent to the Westboro folks. They are driving neutral parties into the arms of MDA et al, and its not too much of a stretch for them to make one stupid move that causes a knee jerk political reaction that further restricts our rights.

You think "yelling fire in a crowded theater" type restrictions to 1A came about proactively out of thin air? No. They were enacted because some jackwagon didnt use common sense and ran his mouth. These long gun OCers are going to be our generation's "2A theater yellers" if we arent careful.

 

[Lebowski]

This!
Acting like asshat for the sake of acting like an asshat is clearly not working. You want to exercise your rights, then great, go on a public street and exercise your rights. I've done it. It's a great time. But going into privately owned businesses that state they want nothing to do with anyone's political views carrying long guns is just plain being an asshat. You make yourself look like an idiot, which makes the rest of us look like idiots. These companies exist to make money, not to support our viewpoints. If we force them to decide they will decide against us, because that is a much safer decision when it comes to their profit margins.

These people (and others like them) are why we can't have nice things.


Read the user submitted comments here: https://www.facebook.com/chipotle?filter=2 <sighs>

So, not only did they not educate, change the minds of anti-gunners or make Chipolte put up a big sign welcoming gun owners... they made Chipolte take a stand, not want guns in their stores, and anti-gunners are dancing and having a good ol' time now because they 'won'.

Just carry your damn gun. Eat a burrito. Go across the street, get a latte. Do whatever. Just don't be those guys.


Sometimes I wonder if the anti-gunners plant people like them in situations because they know they won't be received well and it'll help the anti-gun cause...

 

[88GT]

Even if his choice causes problems down the line that further restricts your abilities? These rocket surgeons arent helping our cause, and are actually part of the problem. They are the 2A equivalent to the Westboro folks. They are driving neutral parties into the arms of MDA et al, and its not too much of a stretch for them to make one stupid move that causes a knee jerk political reaction that further restricts our rights.

You think "yelling fire in a crowded theater" type restrictions to 1A came about proactively out of thin air? No. They were enacted because some jackwagon didnt use common sense and ran his mouth. These long gun OCers are going to be our generation's "2A theater yellers" if we arent careful.

Even then. If I have to scale back or self-limit the free exercise of the full compliment of my rights to avoid having my rights infringed, am I really any better off?

\

 

[Cameramonkey]

Even then. If I have to scale back or self-limit the free exercise of the full compliment of my rights to avoid having my rights infringed, am I really any better off?

\

The problem is as society evolves (not necessarily for the better) restrictions are placed on rights... until someody yells fire, there is no reason to add a speech restriction.

So when these idiots walk RIGHT up to the line (OCing rifles) that most people are only comfortable with a step or two away from the line (OCing handguns) they start trying to get that line pushed back to where THEY are comfortable. Unfortunately for us the courts and legislators arent always on our side in this interpretation. For that reason I prefer restraint on our part. If you dont give them a reason to reexamine where our rights should end, they wont try to push us back.

Hell, my first reaction when I saw the westboro gang was "they shouldnt be allowed to do that! That is despicable!". I was smart enough to say "no, while they may be wrong, it is still their right." Unfortunately I dont think our opponents think that clearly. They just say "OMG! A GUN! HE IS BEING SOOOO IRRESPONSIBLE AND HE SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO DO THAT!" and begin trying to restrict our rights.

Personally, I would prefer to exercise 80% of my right in exchange for not losing more than 50% due to legislative action as a result of incorrect judicial interpretation.

 

[Roadie]

So the act of carrying a firearm openly, is in, and of itself, "confrontational"?

I don't recall many, if any, stories of gun owners actually being confrontational, I just have seen stories about them being CALLED confrontational for carrying..

 

[88GT]

The problem is as society evolves (not necessarily for the better) restrictions are placed on rights... until someody yells fire, there is no reason to add a speech restriction.

So when these idiots walk RIGHT up to the line (OCing rifles) that most people are only comfortable with a step or two away from the line (OCing handguns) they start trying to get that line pushed back to where THEY are comfortable. Unfortunately for us the courts and legislators arent always on our side in this interpretation. For that reason I prefer restraint on our part. If you dont give them a reason to reexamine where our rights should end, they wont try to push us back.

Hell, my first reaction when I saw the westboro gang was "they shouldnt be allowed to do that! That is despicable!". I was smart enough to say "no, while they may be wrong, it is still their right." Unfortunately I dont think our opponents think that clearly. They just say "OMG! A GUN! HE IS BEING SOOOO IRRESPONSIBLE AND HE SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO DO THAT!" and begin trying to restrict our rights.

Personally, I would prefer to exercise 80% of my right in exchange for not losing more than 50% due to legislative action as a result of incorrect judicial interpretation.

I understand your position. I simply refuse to accept the premise that any chain, no matter how light, is acceptable.

 

[Cameramonkey]

So the act of carrying a firearm openly, is in, and of itself, "confrontational"?

I don't recall many, if any, stories of gun owners actually being confrontational, I just have seen stories about them being CALLED confrontational for carrying..

I dont think my 1911 on my hip is confrontational. But I can see how somebody would see someone carrying a long gun ESPECIALLY if its being carried forward in a single point tactical sling like the guys in post 13. On their backs, muzzle down not as much, but its still making a rather bold statement compared to a handgun. Now if these guys were in a war zone, by all means, keep that battle rifle with you at all times. But we are not (yet) so a sidearm is more than adequate. That is unless you are trying to **** the antis off...

I understand your position. I simply refuse to accept the premise that any chain, no matter how light, is acceptable.

Thank you. And I also understand your position. My problem is that (yes, this is a stretch) we are almost like slaves... as long as the slaves dont get too uppity, the masters (govt) let them be. But if they start walking up to that line, the masters gotta reign in the slaves else they will get too powerful and overtake the plantation.

We should exercise the rights we WANT (carrying our pistols) respectfully on a daily basis so that we preserve the RIGHT so that if we ever NEED our rifles we will still have them for when they need to be used per the intent of the 2A.

 

[ckcollins2003]

I don't see what the big deal is...

No matter what you say or do, you won't change a person's mind. It's the same thing on this forum. Everyone thinks that their opinion and way of doing things is always right. They will argue for pages about how their way is better and the conclusion is that neither of them are right and neither of them are wrong.

The problem isn't that people are carrying rifles into businesses, the problem is that people get offended about it and their vagina's start hurting so they expect other people to change so that they are no longer offended. Fat chicks in small clothing offends me and many other people, but you don't see protests against it... which in my opinion is a much more important issue than *****ing about what people choose to defend themselves with.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So the act of carrying a firearm openly, is in, and of itself, "confrontational"?

I don't recall many, if any, stories of gun owners actually being confrontational, I just have seen stories about them being CALLED confrontational for carrying..

If two guys go kiss on the steps of a church, are they being confrontational?

Confrontational isn't always pushing people down and kicking sand in their face.

However, that's a side argument to the main issue. Simple fact is, we can say "I don't care what people think" or we can say "I want popular support for gun owner's rights" but we can't say both. If you want the public's support, you must consider your image and market yourself accordingly. Walking around with long guns is poor marketing. I wonder what INGO would say if cops walked around on their regular beat with AR-15's unslung and ready to go. Well, we won't find out in Indy, because general orders prohibit such a thing. Why?

No matter what you say or do, you won't change a person's mind.

Really? So no one ever changes their opinion on something? Switches political parties? Switches religions? We're all just static and immune to learning and experience? You have all the same beliefs and opinions that you had, say 10 years ago, today?