Civilians Who Carry Long Guns In Public Should Be Tarred And Feathered

http://vuurwapenblog.com/2013/09/20/civi...-and-feathered/

Kind of what some of us have been telling the open carry folks for a while now.......but I have a feeling that won't stop until we also have state law prohibiting open carry.......

When they make enough of the opposition mad enough it will be too late. Personally I think they already have passed the point of no return.

The company's stance came about from events elsewhere. Starbucks stated in an article that "some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction." But thats right, its only the open carrier's fault.
I haven't seen one of these local long gun open carry rallies even mention starbucks. Have you?
Costco did the same thing a few years ago after a chl holder was shot by leo in one of their parking lots. All chl holders should be tarred and feathered!!! Jared's jewelry, CVS, and Chuck E Cheese also doen't want guns in their stores either. Is that due to open carry too?
Honestly, all this hullabaloo tells me that the anti-gun propaganda machine did its job very well.

In other news. Starbucks extended a no smoking zone of 25'. Smokers should be tarred and feathered!

I doubt seriously anti-gun groups have done more than the Yoyo's like this to push this new stance.

According to the article I read (IIRC is was the WSJ) the anti-gun people would even get biligerent with staff, so yes I think beligerent anti-gunners make more of an unfavorable impression than that yoyo posing for his picture. I agree that there is tardedness going on in the open carry camp. Its everywhere now days.

Ya'll should listen to yourselves. You sound subjugated. "Don't piss off the opposition or they'll take away more of our rights." We'd be British and probably stuck on the east coast if our forefather's had that mentality.

That article was very well written and articulated. Well done.

+1

This is like morality, or when is it too cold. Correct answer being "whatever that person says". How much money is enough? Didn't some famous admired person say "any plan is better than no plan at all"?

Starbucks appreciation day

Starbucks appreciation facebook

Newtown Starbucks Appreciation Day

Ya, I would say I have heard of this...

Half the open carry advocates crowd saying Starbucks sucks, the other half telling Starbucks how much they appreciate their 2ND Amendment support. What a cluster???

I feel bad for statbucks. The turf war was brought onto their neutral turf.

The bikers at the Golden Aspen Biker Rally in Ruidoso didn't care either way, Starbucks was packed with motorcycles every time we drove by.

agree that long guns should not be carried in public and that open carry states will soon outlaw same or repeal open carry laws all together and these idiots will make it difficult for more states to approve open carry laws.

I don't have a crystal ball, but I'll make a prediction anyway. The legislature will pass a law during the next legislative session banning open carry of long guns in public places.
Ironically, the "use it or lose it" crowd will blame those who did not open carry, when in fact it will be those very people who continually shoved their AR's and AK's in everyone's faces who will generate the new law.
Like it or not, people in general don't like seeing perfect strangers walking around in public with rifles strapped to them in the midst of all of the mass shootings and other general craziness going on in this country, especially when it serves no real purpose other than to show everyone they can.
IMO, the argument that we will lose the ability to carry if we don't exercise it holds absolutely no water. It has been legal for many, many years to carry long guns. Until this year, how many people have you ever seen doing this? The answer for most would be "none", yet somehow we haven't lost it yet.

You must be thinking of a different Texas Legislature!

Possibly, but I believe there are enough influential people who will grow tired of seeing Johnny Rambos when they are running their errands that it will happen.

I am afraid you are right.

The people that have influence over the Texas Legislature haven't worried about the needs or desires of the general public for ages. An ugly fact that has been hammered into me many times while wearing out shoe leather in Austin.

Another thought. As the Governor prepares himself for another run for the Presidency, there is no way he would sign any legislation restricting weapons of any form.

Oh my, my.....how naïve to think that old Rick wouldn't sign a law against open carry of AR's and AK's to draw in the independent vote......Finally a candidate that takes the 2nd Amendment and the welfare of the people into consideration......I can see it now.

The Independent Vote does not participate in the Republican presidential candidate selection process.

Well, I'm sure old Rick expects to make it further than just being in the process......come on man!

And flip-flopping on gun control is going to get him nominated by the Republican Party.

It won't be flip flopping, as soon as enough of the public gets sick of these fools walking around in public scaring old ladies and children with their non-sense, right, middle, and left America will believe he is doing us a big favor.

You may be right aeb. I just think if this continues the public outcry will get to the point that the politicians will have to do something to save their own skins.

I have to agree with you.

I'm glad I haven't seen that. I would have to tell them what idiots they are.

So politicians are going to make open carry long guns illegal because some folks feel uncomfortable with it? If people open carried it would become common and people wouldn't freak out. Guns don't make people bad, people make guns bad. Just because you don't agree with something that another person does that makes them an idiot? There are groups out there that think people who hunt are idiots, does that mean we are and that politicians should make it illegal? I don't like seeing two guys making out in public, but its not illegal and I can't do anything about it. I think ill pressure my lawmakers to make it illegal.

I would love to see the look on the open carry folks faces if others showed up to their planned events and as thay are walking through Walmart someone screamed "He Has A Gun...Run...Run. I bet they would stuff their AK-47's under a bunch of pillows and head for the door.

Quite the imagination you have there... Actually I seem this happen twice last week, even the chl carriers were hiding their guns. SMH give be a break

Quite the imagination you have there... Actually I seem this happen twice last week, even the chl carriers were hiding their guns. SMH give be a break

WTF does this mean? This thread is about open carry Douchebags.

Yep read all the posts before your post. We are tired of open carry douchebags doing stupid things and screwing it up for us. DB.

You tell me what it means dumb a$$, You posted the story

This sounds like a 16yo thought of this? You on your way to class, tardy bell just rang.

Tar boilers and chicken pluckers should be tarred and feathered!!!!

Some of your open carry advocates and promoters:





Is that the image you're looking for?

Yup.

Not sure what your trying to suggest, though...

That you are part of the problem NOT the soultion. You do not seem to grasp the concept that you are HURTING the cause not helping. With gun rights, perception is reality. When you march and waive guns in people faces, they assume ALL gun owners are like you.

Hmmm... There is no picture of me out in public with a rifle, as the only place I've open carried a rifle was on private land for hunting or shooting. So by supporting me fellow Americans decision to exercise their second amendment rights, then I am "hurting our cause"? Well I think that anyone that wishes to put limits on other people's rights based upon their own irrational comfort levels is hurting our entire country.

And I still don't understand the point of the picture you posted. I have absolutely no problem with those guys open carrying their rifles. Please explain what the problem is with those guys open carrying their rifles. I will gladly discuss it with you.

I'd go so far as to say those guys in that picture are the epitome of what the 2nd amendment stands for.

And I'd be happy to discuss it.

You mean they'll see me exercising my right and not shooting anyone? Crazy! I used to cringe when my son was learning to ride his bike. I didn't want him to fall and injure himself but the more I watched, the less uneasy I became. I think the same will be true with firearms, and those ignorant to them. Also a novel idea for anti-guns folks is moving to a state that does not allow it. I love texas and I love the mind set, and I'll move when the liberty takers out number us.

so only active duty (and reserve when training) should be allowed to open carry firearms? What about our civilian police forces, I would hate for them to have to carry concealed as well.

Like I said before, there were stores that put up no firearm policies after conceal carry became a reality. The nay sayers who said it will be like the Wild West, and the streets would run with blood were proven wrong. The hullabaloo died down and we're still conceal carrying. In fact, it's more popular than it has ever been. Several states already have open carry and there have been no legislation to repeal that, and no other national chains making policies against it. Why would TX be different?

Black panthers do exist! So does Bigfoot.

All right; let's hear it.

I'm going to tell you what I see: Intimidation. The New Black Panthers are thugs using the aegis of 2A to further their ends.

LINK

So, other than the Constitutional right afforded to citizens not otherwise disqualified, what makes these thugs the epitome of what the 2A stands for? To show "they won't be pushed around", even knowing that unless you're black your demise is a goal of theirs? This isn't remotely close to the numbnuts at Starbucks.

Do you think the public in general will think you are any better than the Black Panthers? I think the comments on here from gun owners has shown that being an arse like the Black Panthers will not farther the agenda. I think it will hurt more than help.

I would hope they do. The NBPs are a racist, militant black nationalist group.

But when you say "you", do you mean me? Because I haven't advocated blatant OC. In fact, two threads I recently responded to in the OT forum (that were later moved) I wrote that although I support OC, this is a bad time for the OC long arm crowd to try this risky gambit of asserting a right that might well be abridged or rescinded given sensationalistic press coverage of mass shootings, mid-term elections and the likelihood of one or two Supreme Court justices appointed before BHO's presidency ends.

And I did in fact specifically quote a member that did assert the NBPs were epitomizing the intent of the 2A. He posted that below the pics of the NBPs, so I can only presume he meant them, since the Starbucks mooks weren't specifically mentioned.

You was used as those that support the OC.

I'll get back to this when I have some time to explain my opinion.

Alright! Time to address the picture of Black Panthers openly carrying firearms, and my stated opinion that this is the "epitome of what the 2nd amendment stands for", whatever that means...

The Black Panther Party started out as a group of black men that armed themselves to protect their fellow black citizens. Protect them from whom? From the government! Maybe we have different versions of history, but my version records a time that a predominately white police department repeatedly abused their powers to oppress the predominately black community they had sworn to protect and serve. But instead of/in addition to protecting and serving this community, the police beat, robbed, murdered members of this community. I do not make any statements regarding the personal life choices of any members of the community, or whether they were good righteous people, or evil sinful people. All I state is that the police that had sworn to protect and serve this community instead/also abused this community.

In response to the abuses being incurred upon them, they armed themselves and threatened deadly force to anyone that would come to abuse them. I believe that nobody should have to deal with being physically harmed, and that everyone has a right to protect themselves. By arming themselves, they were able to defend themselves against those that meant them harm. Pure.

But you mention those that abused the carrying of weapons? Those that would instead use their weapons to do the same things they were trying to stop?

Here is how I will explain it to you:

There are cops that would use weapons irresponsibly. Threaten with their weapon when they should not; intimidate people with their weapon for immoral purposes. Fire into crowds, at non-threatening innocents, or on purpose at those they wish to harm. This does not make me say "TAKE THE GUNS AWAY FROM ALL COPS" It makes me say lock up the piece of [censored] cops that do something to harm, or threaten to harm a fellow citizen.


There are members of the Black Panthers that would use weapons irresponsibly. Threaten with their weapon when they should not; intimidate people with their weapon for immoral purposes. Fire into crowds, at non-threatening innocents, or on purpose at those they wish to harm. This does not make me say "TAKE THE GUNS AWAY FROM ALL BLACK PANTHERS!!!!" It makes me say lock up the piece of [censored] Black Panthers that do something to harm, or threaten to harm a fellow citizen.

Here's something to think about... You've got a nut job thinking of going into a Starbucks and blowing away a dozen or more people. On his way into said Starbucks he sees a "2nd ammendment touting nutjob" with an AR strapped to his back... And he walks away... You'll never hear that story on the news.

We don't have a prayer at keeping our rights if we keep fighting each other. What is the point of having the right to bear arms if we don't exercise it? The only people bitching about this being "thrown in their face" are the ones who would rather us not have those rights. The ones who forget what this country would be like if we didn't have those rights.

I believe that you are totally wrong, I know you are when it comes to what I know and believe. I don't need some open carry guy standing up for my rights, I will speak for myself. These open carry folks are looking for their 15 minutes on the web, nothing more......you can promote their actions anyway you want, it is still over the top. As for your idea that some "Nut Job' would be scared off my an open carry guy......goofy, he would probably just steal the guy's unloaded AR and go use it in his crime.

Was listening to the Lynn Woolley on the radio when CJ Grishim called in, now he filing suit against the WPD for the mental anguish and trauma they caused his son. He lost his first case, his next ones not looking good so now he's putting his son in the spotlight. I've never seen a man more starved for attention, he's embarrassing.

We're I an officer and walked into that place and seen that, Mr. Bonehead would have been at gun point, Mr. Bonehead would have been on the ground, Mr. Bonehead would have been cuffed and Mr. Bonehead would have went to jail.

On what charge?

I'm starting to dislike the Long gun open carriers as well. The press is bad, and those who listen to the press flock to the polls. But until the law is changed, I don't believe he is breaking any law.

Smiling, he doesn't like when people smile. Gives him the willys. Makes him suspicious.

I do not doubt that he is a Bonehead, but I am with Savage 250, on what charge?

X'3.....on what charge? I despise the open carry boneheads myself, but then again, I despise a lot of groups. Doesn't mean they should be on the ground and go to jail just because I despise them. Just my

inquiring minds want to know

Whatever side of the fence someone is on statements like this have to bother you. I dont know Hwyman and not saying he is or was in law enforcement but its scary to think there are law enforcers with this mentality.

Bingo, I am also waiting to hear what bogus charge hwyman would be hauling this guy to jail for.

Ummm... The answer is pretty obvious. See: CJ Grisham.

An officer can go up to a law abiding citizen, instigate a confrontation, then arrest the "suspect" on any number of charges related to the confrontation. Resisting arrest, interference with a public official, etc.

Unfortunately, HWYMAN has already proven LEOs have the ability to do so.

It's certainly changed my perception. Police are elite, we are simple subjects. Laws mean nothing: the POLICE are the LAW.

free bump for hwyman

You're a mess

Oh, Barney Fife! Where are you?

What makes me a mess?

It's been clearly proven to me that an officer has the power to approach a law-abiding citizen that is not suspected of any crime, and, without making any verbal request or command, take a personal item off of said citizen. If citizen makes any natural human movement of resistance reaction, the officer can point a handgun at the citizen's head, handcuff, and arrest said citizen. Citizen can be charged, tried, and convicted. It's clearly been proven. Just happened.

Seems to me that the police state of our society is a mess, and I'm of clear mind and body. It is entirely possible that I am messed up, and New York has it right.

Either way, I ain't open carrying a long gun anywhere other than out on private land.

Is this guy hunting pastries? Why does he have the shotgun in the ready position?

He is guessing the pastries from the cops, we all know how they tear up a pastry shop. And why does it matter how he is carrying it?

Because it is illegal to display it in a manner that would create alarm. So again, why does he have the shotgun in the ready position? Is he hunting? Getting ready to defend himself?

Have u seen the crowds at starbucks

Please show me the law that defines what is displaying a weapon that would cause alarm... What you may think is alarming I might this is just fine.

There is no law that defines what manner of displaying a weapon would create alarm.

Didn't think so

If a citizen calls in with concerns because somebody is carry a weapon, it is because they are alarmed. It isn't the law, it is the individuals right to be concerned. You walk down my street, I will bet that one of the neighbors will call LEO on you. Actually probably more that 2 or 3 of them will call LEO.

It is their right and most likely LEO will be out there to ask you why. You can be whissing with the LEO or you can play nice, one way might get a free ride to Taylor County jail, the other will let you go ahead until the next citizen calls in.

Not trying to be a smart*ss, but what is "whissing" with the LEO, and why does the citizens right to be concerned outweigh anothers right to open carry a long gun? Not trying to be a richard, just want an honest answer from someone elses point of view?

Apparently no one has the answer to your question. you're question adds a different perspective on the thread.

Yeah, I gave up on an answer .....figured I must have asked a question I wasn't suppose to or something. Let me add that I am not a supporter of open carry by any means.

Disorderly Conduct

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm

I walked about 3 miles the other day carrying an AR, finally got a ride, from the first car that came by.... and she was cute cute cute.... was in suburban, found out gas gauge has quit, and doors don't lock well....... figured either carry it or give it away

Why do those of you that bash the open carriers care if a law is passed against the open carry of long guns?

You're not going too do it anyway due to your fear of the right being taken away.

A right that you are afraid to practice is no right at all.

Free speech is a right. But if you never used it because you feared that if you did the government would take it away, well, then the right essentially doesn't exist.

Doesnt appear anyone is alarmed in the photo, is there something else he could be charged with? What we have here is a clear case hoplophobia.

I agree, doesn't appear that anyone there is alarmed....and if they are, it's probably because of the price of coffee in those places.

Because a new law restricting open carry of long arms could have unintended consequences. Could affect how you carry one in your vehicle, could affect hunting on public lands and lakes, etc. Just because I don't agree with a bunch of yahoos that go to the Blue Mesa with their guns to "protest" (although I think intimidate does apply here) a group of 4 anti-gun women, doesn't mean that I am against open carry. However, even though open carry of long arms is legal, it is not customary in the urban areas. If you practice this right, you should expect interaction with the local PD.

I have lived in an open carry state where in rural settings, it was not an issue what so ever to carry openly. Once you went into the big city though, it was still legal, but not customary. The PD would be called, you would be asked to leave the property of the restaurant, mall, gas station, whatever... even though you could legally carry, you couldn't realistically carry in the urban centers. Same thing will happen here in Texas. With CHL, out of sight, out of mind. Open carry in Walmart and enough customers will complain and you will no longer be welcome to carry in Walmart. Your right to carry will not trump the property owner rights.

If I was there, I would be alarmed. I don't know said yahoo, and there is no reason why that shotgun should not be slung in that environment. Bolt is foward and closed, so I have to assume that shotgun is loaded. I wouldn't appreciate being muzzle swept while trying to buy a coffee and a muffin.

Agreed, if I came out of the bathroom, and saw this man standing in the front of the restaraunt with his shotgun "at the ready", I would be very alarmed. He looks like he's:

A. Bird hunting (in a restaraunt).
B. Getting ready to defend himself (in a restaraunt).
C. Getting ready to rob the restaraunt.

I'm still trying to figure out why he is in a coffee shop with his shotgun at the ready?

A. Judging from the lack of alarmed patrons at the coffee shop, I gather this was a staged event.
B. He probably posed like that for the picture and wasn't carrying it around like that all the time.
C. He was most likely not the only one in the shop openly carrying a long gun.


With that said, under ordinary everyday circumstances, I too would be alarmed with a yahoo like this. I do not support open carry of any firearms, and am not suggesting that this is the best course of action to get a message across. I also however do not get worked up over one picture of an idiot in a coffe shop with a gun without knowing the rest of the story. It is not against the law to openly carry a long gun, and I do not support infringing on another's rights just because I disagree with them. LEO's that take an agressive stance with people that are breaking no laws are probably the same ones that will be coming to take your guns when/if the dumbocrats get their way and disarm American citizens. They will use the same old tired story that they are "just doing their job"...but like cool hand Luke said, "calling it your job, don't make it right boss". Just my

This is a terrible staged "Kodak" moment of a nerd. Nobody is alarmed because he has probably been there all morning holding it and then somebody wanted a picture of it and he posed.

The photo clearly shows imo an alarming posture.

Im glad we can do things like this but we have to be smarter as gun owners about it

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/...o-his-business/

If by nerd, you mean deployed American soldier at a Starbucks in Kuwait... You'd be correct.

The man holding the shotgun in the picture we reference "is in the US Military, and for context, wanted to advise that this photo was taken in a Starbucks in Camp Arifjan, Kuwait in 2005."

http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/

http://www.texashuntingforum.com/forum/u......#Post4887465

That explains it, a REMF.

Those of Open Carry Texas are carrying their rifles as a peaceful protest due to our states anti gun laws that violate our 2nd Amendment. The 2nd amendment does not state that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except for reasonable regulations. It is very clear what it says. You do have the right to carry whichever firearm you choose and how you wish to carry it and any state that infringes that right is in violation of the Bill of Rights. The supremacy clause guarantees that the 2nd amendment must be followed by all states and any law that restricts that right is null and void. (At some point someone will try to mention the 1833 Supreme Court) The Supreme Court's ruling of 1833 about the Bill of Rights was outside of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is suppose to provide interpretation of law and determine if any law violates the Constitution. They flat choose to ignore the supremacy clause when they made their ruling.

Citizens flat out lay down and let their states roll over them when it comes to their rights. Only a small few stand up for their rights and most of them try to do it in a peaceful way. Bully cops, ignorant cops, and some citizens try to oppress citizens from actually exercising their rights. Many surprisingly are gun owners.

You should not be worried about open carry laws becoming more restrictive because of these individuals participating in their right to bear arms. You should worry about the citizens who are willing to do nothing about an infringing government. You should be worried about the citizen who encourages other citizens to not partipate in their rights because they are afraid of what the government will do as a result of law abiding citizens participating in their god given rights. These rights are natural rights which no government should be allowed to take from you.

Regardless of ones opinion of open carry or concealed carry, all citizens have the right to do so how they wish. All private businesses who do not recieve government funding have the right to restrict firearms in their business and the right to ask someone to leave their property. Same thing for any private property. Any LEO that arrest someone for open carrying a firearm is wrong in his/her actions because they violated the right of that citizen. If the citizen has truly done something that violated the law, then that is different.

It is foolish to carry your weapon in the low ready position. Hands on the rifle and unslung or unholstered could definitely cause alarm for good reason. A holstered or slung weapon should not be a cause for alarm.

Also, nowhere does the constitution guarantee you the right to be free from fear or that you will be safe. The 2nd Amendment is the key. It gives you the ability to be safer and the oppurtunity to fear less.

Great link!

From the link.



The fat arse in the plaid shorts with the Ron Paul t-shirt on was a nice touch.

I figured you'd like that article! Lots of fence-straddling.

Also from the article:

"Last week, we shared a major victory in Colorado with the recall of two anti-gun politicians. Thats our Win."


So many people here talk crap about open carry demonstrators, and how they hurt the "cause". Like the author of the linked article. In one breath he talks crap about open carry demonstration, but in the next, he refers to the recall as a "major victory" and "win". In fact, he says "WE SHARED" and "OUR WIN".

So, he takes ownership of the positive result, but denounces the means by which the recalls were accomplished. Nice.

Go look up:
"Pueblo Freedom and Rights"
and
"Basic Freedom Defense Fund"


THEY are the grassroots organizers of the recalls that everyone said COULD NOT BE DONE. THEY are the ones that organized open carry demonstrations to raise awareness and gather support. THEY are the ones this author is denouncing, while in the next breath sharing in THEIR victory.

Without open carry demonstrations, the Colorado recall elections would not have happened.



Yet some of you still say open carry advocates are doing nothing but harm. You still say, they are doing it wrong; you need to do it THIS way, the RIGHT way, which is RIGHT because I SAY SO.

Words are words. Actions get results. The open carry groups have gotten, and continue to get, RESULTS. Results that their detractors have no problem sharing ownership of.

Some should go ahead and look up "hypocrite", as well.

I looked at the Pueblo Freedom and Rights Facebook page and I don't see much open carry. They carried openly in a parade on July 4th. The rest of their pics show them with banners, flags, pamphlets, t-shirts, and petitions. Where they were set up getting signatures for the recalls, not a gun in sight.

Sssshhhh!

Anyone for cheese?

Supporting the legal right for open carry is not the same thing as mandatory carry. Must be a tough distinction for our authoritarian supporting posters to understand.

Parkdale Mall has now posted the proper signage barring concealed carry in response to an OC incident in the mall. Still think you are helping gun owners?

Parkdale Mall 30.06

Well I know where I won't be a victim.

Starbucks that I have never been to, and this mall that I'll never go to. There were more that did this when conceal carry became legal. Did you say people shouldn't conceal carry too? Were you one of the ones saying that blood would flow in the streets or that it would be the Wild West due to it?
Some business leaders over react. (ex. AEtv and Duck Dynasty). If we as gun owners would actually stand together, they would probably change that 30.06 sign...again, Duck Dynasty and AEtv.
But no, it's easier to set on the interwebs and make a post blaming someone vs. Standing up for your rights. THAT mentality is what will cost us further rights.

No it is the OC fools that are going to cost us rights.

It is like speed limits. At one time there were no speed limits. But some fools decided that it was THEIR RIGHT to drive as fast and they wanted to anywhere they wanted to. Today we have speed limits because a few fools had to act like fools.

As I have said before You are either pro gun and thus on the open carry side and all the other gun owners side or your on the anti gun side. Anti open carry is anti gun.

That is total BS. Most everyone here is for Open Carry. HOWEVER, THERE IS A RIGHT WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. IT is not a question of pro gun or anti gun - It is a question of how to go about doing it. These "OC Rallies" for the most part are hurting the cause not helping it.

You don't help repeal speed limits by staging a street race down main street. Most of the guys here would get behind you if you guys stop acting like fools.

It's not B.S. It's just ether you believe and support the 2nd amendment or you don't.
I'm not sure that open carry walks are the right way or not. But calling them fools and fighting with them will get us nowhere. I see this like the hunters and black rifle guys going at it.

People who consistently do foolish tings are fools.
Sticking a gun under someone's nose just because you can is a foolish act.

Whistler you just don't get it. I, like almost everybody on this forum, support 2nd amendment and most support open carry. We DO NOT support the manner in these Open Carry rallies are conducted. They are hurting the cause not helping. They are making the job of those who are ACTUALLY trying to promote change all that much harder.

That's a lot of the problem in this country today....if you don't support something, you are against it. It's this us against them mentality that gets us all no where, in a hurry. Whistler, I call on this. I for one don't support open carry, but I am not an "anti" in any shape, form, or fashion. Just because I don't support your views doesn't mean I am willing to infringe on your rights to do so. I will always prefer concealed carry over open carry, because I don't want anyone to know, I want them to be a little unsure. That's just my preference, and as always, I could be wrong.

Funny how you tell me that you will never go to these businesses anyway, yet in the same breath you want to "stand together". The fact is that the sign was posted in direct response to OC of a long gun. Starbucks asked you guys to leave the guns at home, in direct response to OC of a long gun. If furthering the OC rights is the intended result, it is not being very successful. If gun owners are this divided on your tactics, how do you think you are "educating" the non-gun owning soccer moms?

If it is not BS, then why are you not out there every day carrying your rifle to support open carry? Let us know how that works out.

I'll sort of say something that has always made little sense. If by "open carry" it is meant a sixgun strapped on your side. Well, when I was a young'in (N. Carolina) there was this guy that would wear a Govt 45 in a holster and eat in a restaurant. Those were different days and no one seemed to care, but, it seems to me it would be a lot better to just let everyone carry concealed with no permit required. No one will get bent out of shape by seeing a gun and the bad guys will be aware that ANYONE might be going around with a concealed weapon. Just seems to make more sense to me.
Wouldn't it be something if a couple of bad guys waltzed into some local restaurant, brandishing guns and yelling "Hold up" and about ten guys in the place take out their pistols and riddle them full of holes. Then the local police say, "Those bad men got just what they asked for and we are awarding good citizen plaques to the folks that rid those bad men from our society AND THAT'S HOW IT'S GOING BE, IF YOU WANT TO HOLD UP A PLACE TRY CALIFORNIA OR NEW YORK.
Okay, I'm a dinosaur.

It won't work out nice because we obviously don't have that right anymore. So far we've lost our first, second, and fourth amendment rights. Does it say "bear arms" or "hide arms" in that bill that is supposed to guarantee us our civil liberties?

That's just funny.

That's funny right there

I'll sort of play the devil on this one... Are there limitations on the Second Amendment? Sure doesn't sound like it if "Not Infringed Upon" but on the first Amendment and free speech- laws have been passed about perjury in a court of law, verbal threats against a person, saleman lying and defrauding;so, it might be fair to say that all speech doesn't fall under free speech. Trouble is...who gets to decide these things?
In any event, using the same logic on the second Amendment, if you have a shotgun on a rack in the rear window of a pick up truck- that's your business as far as I'm concerned. If you walk into a restaurant with a shotgun, or walk down main street USA- it just seems that you are creating a disturbance. A city ordinance against open caring of firearms in public. I think I remember a story of Bat Masterson in Dodge. He was checking guns and some guy objected because of his rights. This guy didn't live in town. Bat told him the town was the concern of the townspeople and he could exercise his rights outside town limits or check the guns if he was staying in town.
As I said, I myself have always had trouble trying to figure out where to draw the line. You're out in the country at a roadside diner and a guy comes in with a sixgun in a holster- that doesn't bother me but the same guy comes in with the gun in hand- I start wondering why, is he going to rob the place.
Lots of gray areas.
Places like Chicago or Connecticut that don't even want you to have a gun, period. I cannot understand why hordes of people are not up in arms over that. I think private gun ownership is essencial to preserving a free nation. Actually mandatory gun ownership (used to exist under the old militia laws) might not be a bad idea.

Yes, there are and should be qualifying restraints upon the 2A. The 2A treated as an absolute right relative to private property needs to be considered-as what this thread is about. The analog of this is a right to travel. Does that right to travel allow one to trespass on anothers' property?

Another is the idea that one should be allowed to carry a firearm without any vetting of competency. That does not necessarily mean stuff like conviction records/mental fitness, although if interpreted broadly, it does. Rather, I mean this in a sense of teaching restraint not to shoot into a crowd under stress, over pentration or ensuring a minimum level of marksmanship. We expect this of LEOs (although some fail in this), so is it unreasonable to expect a level of proficiency?

Again, I am for the right of OC, just dubious of the merits thereof.

I personally think I (not you) should be able to have a tank with working cannon and 50 cal turret. My little ar is no match for the government forces and I need to be able to defend myself from the government. Which I believe is the clause for writing in the 2nd amendment. Today the government is not out to get me but I have no idea what tomorrow will bring. I could just lay low when shtf or I could be prepared. My civil liberties trump your fear. I am not responsible for what you fear, be it guns or spiders. I am responsible for my safety and it is my duty by the constitution to have arms to defend myself from a tyrannical government. If I don't need it then the military and le don't need it. Is the safety of the government more important than me and my family? It is easy for these politicians to have a false sense of security in our nation as they have armed guards all about. You and I have a responsibility to be the armed guards of the American people.
The mass shooters, politicians, and media are ruining the perception of guns in America. These shootings took place in areas where civilians were disarmed by fear, I am confident the outcomes would be significantly different had they been able to exercise their civil liberties. If you see me walking around with a gun and it scares you, too bad. Maybe you should worry more about protecting yourself and not about how scary the world is. Life insurance gives my family financial security should something befall me. My guns give my family physical security in case something befalls America. When will that happen? The same day Christ returns? I dont know, but I'll be prepared for both.

Very well stated Sir Duke. My thoughts exactly.

Ditto on that.

One problem, as I see it, is that things have changed since 1776. At the time people feared "standing armies" so the people themselves were the army. The Miltia Acts of 1792 and 1793 required by law that every able bodied man have a suitable rifle or musket. So, maybe the miltia was "well regulated" in the respect that the junior officers were voted in by the local townsmen and the senior officers were appointed by the governor but that has nothing to do with the historical fact that the firearms came out of people's homes and were required by law. So a well regulated militia was the citizen coming forth with his privated owned and legally required firearm into a militia that consisted of officiers, etc. and operated in a legal manner to enforce laws, repell invasion, etc. A lynch mob isn't a militia. A group of guys out in the woods armed and wearing uniforms are not a militia- in the historical American sense. They have a right to be there but they're not militia IMHO.
What about if you are all alone and the Russians or Chinese invade America? Do you have a legal right to repel? Sure. If government derives it's just powers from the people then the power of the government to act is no more that what the people have any way.
What about this "assualt weapon" business? Clearly, the intent of the Second Amendment is that the private citizen is armed with a "suitable rifle or musket" Suitable for defending freedom. Clearly there is a military application involved. In today's world an assualt type rifle is pretty much mandatory to defend home and hearth. IMHO.
Even in ancient England, militias always consisted of citizens coming forth with their own arms. The aspect of private firearm ownership is inseperable from the concept of militia. You cannot have one without another.
Historically, in the War of 1812 some American units didn't feel they had to follow the British into Canada- militia can repell foreign invasion but can't be deployed outside the country. The War with Mexico introduced volunteer militia units that took their duties more seriously and trained harder than mandated by Congress. By 1903 the idea of a militia had lost favor. Congress officially put everyone under Title 10 into the "inactive militia" and you didn't have to drill any more. Under the same act the National Guard was created.
The writings of Jefferson Davis have some of the best writings I've ever read on the subject. Davis was brillant, a U.S. Senator, Hero in the Mexican War, Secretary of War for the US, and 16th President of the Southern half of the country. He claimed a militia unit called forth into Federal service keeps it's identity and serves briefly. The idea is the Federal government doesn't want the obligation to cloth, train and arm people- there is a temporary situation where the locals can be used and sent home. Thus, according to Davis, if the Federal government needs more permanent recruits they draft the indivual and not call forth a militia.
In any event, a right once recognized needs a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to prohibit- that's how I see it. I know liberals are liberals but doesn't everyone want to be free? I have never been able to understand why there is not total and complete support for the Second Amendment. One of our great freedoms.
I'm told in Massachusetts it is illegal to have a screwdriver in a car without a valid reason as it is viewed as a "potential weapon".
Well....just some of my thoughts on the issue.

lots of other discussions, but this still seems to be unanswerable.

Most if not all things that LE can buy you can too so there goes that. As far as tanks and guided missels that the military has I think youre gonna be out of luck as it should be.

Ahh, but the Democrat liberals are working feverishly everywhere they can to insure you can't buy things LE has. Not long ago magazines that held 15 rds were stamped LE only. Thanks to slick willie, so there goes that.

I agree with that but as of now we all can still buy everything. I dont want to live in a country that people walk around with AKs and RPGs...but hey thats just me.

Why? Do I not have the right to defend myself with the same tools the government uses? How is this an even playing field? If it is not an even playing field then we are not practicing the intent of the 2nd amendment. Do I believe in ordinances stating I can't cruise around town in my tank? Yes. Can I cruise it around my own property or during a hostile government take over? Damn skippy.

I think- as far as the 2nd Ad. is concerned that we have to back peddle a little. The Declaration of Independence spoke of man being endowed by a Creator with rights (God Given) NOW if you are not a believer- that's okay just stick with me a second. This "God-Given" concept implies responsible application. God would not give a right to do bad (You might have freewill to do bad but you don't have the right to do it- otherwise there would be no 10 Commandments) So...Freedom of Speech- the right doesn't extent to slander, perjury, fraud/misrepresentation, versal threats, etc because freedom of speech is God-Given and the right doesn't extend that far. It is a practical way to work into liberties responsible application. So you are going to the range or hunting- okay to have a gun, you are in a run-down area of town - IMHO the right of concealed carry is automatic- you shouldn't need a license. let's say a riot broke out in town and the police are under manned so the mayor calls out the town folk and for them to be armed and ready to do some sort of militia service in supressing insurrection. All okay. Brandishing a weapon in a drunken state- ungodly and not okay. The Constitution allows rights to be reduced through due process of law so if you have been convicted by a jury of your peers- then restrictions on felons okay- because of due process of law.
So even if you don't believe in a creator the concept of a God-Given right can be pretty handy in establishing how far the right ought to extend. It seems a practical solution.

I totally agree. I think it's a damn shame that a man had to jump through a million hoops and drop a big stack of cash to buy a full auto too.

But you can still buy one or 1000 if you want. For that matter if you want to live in a land full of people with RPGs and AKS walking around I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.

Years ago there was a well thought out and objectively conducted study about violence and gun control. Several countries were examined. "Low Crime" countries were England- with lots of gun control and Switzerland with just about no gun control at that time. "High Crime" countries were (I forget exactly) Philappines and Mexico? It was the same, one with lots of gun control and the other with no gun control.
The study concluded that gun control had no effect on crime levels. If a society was lawless to begin with then crime existed across all levels, murders, stealing, etc and if the society was law abiding then crime was lower across all levels.
It wasn't what the folks in DC wanted to hear. The report was tossed out and never discussed further.
We are living during times when the exigencies of the day are all important. Emotions not reason dictate law. The Connecticut school shooting a year or so past is a PERFECT example. Let's review: After the Kennedy shooting- no more buying guns through the mail. Then it was no more "Saturday Night Specials", then it was background checks. In Connecticut we have a very well, upscale, suburban community with the mother an attorney (?) and the father a VP of a major US Corporation. Neither with a criminal back ground. The firearms were some of the most expensive made, there was the back ground checks, waiting periods, EVERYTHING. Apparently their child was an accident waiting to happen. When I was in High School a year ahead of me was a kid with straight A's (Those high school grades are supposed to be important on figuring out if someone will be a criminal or not- why I never could figure out). In any event this kid must have figured his best days were over, once he got out in the real world those straight A's might not matter. He drove his car at 130 miles an hour straight into a tree and instantly died. An acident waiting to happen.
And, he had 3 other kids in the car that also died. No one argued to "Take cars out of the hands of children" or better "Car Control". I'm sure if he had killed himself and the other three with a gun the outcry would have been different.
As I said, the first year Clinton's background checks went into effect he gloated about 600,000 "would be" handgun purchases denied. I checked to see if there was any correlation- if there were 600,000 less crimes. Nope.

Exactly.

WOW

Excellent observation Dave Scott.

Because "Emotions not reason dictate law" it is imperative that gun owners not exacerbate the situation by the open carry of intimidating long guns in places where they do nothing more than make the general public nervous about all things concerning firearms. A recent case in point is the man in Bell county with a CHL walking down the road with an AR15 AND the concealed pistol because "wild hogs had been seen in the area" and he "needed" the protection. Keep this up and we there will be legislation to outlaw even the PICTURE of a rifle... Be smart...

I think I jus changed my opinion on open carry protestors. My wife called me in a panic today because 2 guys walked into chipotle with AR-15s strapped to their chest. I was pro open carry demonstration for a long time, but when I heard to panic in her voice, and my wife is a competent shooter and lover of guns and the 2nd amendment, I realized they amount of damage they are doing to our image as gun owners. If my wife reacted that way, I can't imagine the way people who dont understand guns feel when they see it. She truly thought she was about to be killed. She had no idea they were demonstrators until she got back other car, booked it out of there, and called the cops.

I had a vehicle breakdown at night while I was driving home from college for Christmas break. This was when I still made fun of people with cell phones (long time ago) and had a long walk through the dark to get to a phone. I had my 870 with me (I used to check it at the campus police station) and slung it over my shoulder with a full magazine, empty chamber, bolt slightly open. That would have been a pretty creepy walk otherwise and, really, I think that's the sort of thing that the provision of Texas law for long-gun open carry contemplates. You can't openly carry a long gun in a manner calculated to alarm, which is pretty gray, but a shotgun with a closed bolt held in a ready position in a coffee shop would alarm the **** out of me. If I recognize the print of your glock under your sweater, that doesn't alarm me at all... Makes me think you're one of the good guys.

Another business has said no to guns.... when will these guys learn to quit trying to drag businesses into their cause?

Chipotle bans guns

Man, sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.

Coincidence? Not likely.

Even Texas Open Carry is distancing itself from the Tarrant County group...

Split in Texas Open Carry

My question in all these open carry demonstrations is when do you feel the need to react? If you walk into a place where I am with a gun loaded and chambered I am definelty aware. But what happens if they accidently muzzle someone? I would be really bothered... What would you do?


Sorry I didn't read the whole thread. . Just chiming in

Maybe they are getting smarter...

No more long guns in businesses

For those of y'all who think those idjits should have their guns taken away, they're having a rally in Burk Burnett this weekend to protest the land grab. It would be a perfect time and place for y'all to put on some anti-shirts and protest against gun rights.

I'm all for it. That's what the right to open carry is all about.

I don't think anyone here thinks they should have their guns taken away, just that they are doing more harm than good. It appears that the leadership of the movement agrees. How many more businesses have to ask you to leave the guns at home before you get the picture? Not to mention that carrying a rifle does nothing to promote open carry of a handgun. And the veiled threat in your post also does not help the OC movement either. Makes you look like a bully with a gun, just like the picture the Moms group paints...

I'm so tired of seeing [censored] holes demonstrating carrying a loaded rifle slug over their back in public and on street corners causing a scene. WHY? Sure you can legally do it, but WHY? All this does is bring more awareness to the open carry laws and causes cities and towns to ban doing so (whether it's legal or not). It freaks out all the dems that have moved here from dem states, and pushes for action AGAINST this open carry law. WTF! So, I ask again, WHY?

WOW you know what I really hate, those people who flaunt their GOD GIVEN rights by wearing an "i voted" sticker. God, if the dems see us voting, it just makes them want to get out and vote too

Couldn't agree more... it's a dumb arse move with little to gain and likely to cost us all when numb nutz goes to far... as to the reason why... well for me, the pictures of the "protesters" seem to say it all....

I understand the demonstrating and protesting, and even though I don't agree with the OC movement's tactics, I support their rights to protest. However, that protest should be have a well plsnned and publicized route. Keep the protest on the streets or at the capital, but not in local businesses. The businesses want to sell coffee, hamburgers, and tacos... they do not wish to be part of your protest. As we have seen, when you force their hand in the matter, they tend to lean towards the "no guns allowed" side of things. And when a national chain changes their policy from obeying local laws to no guns allowed, it has effects on others outside of Texas.

Cyphertext - You make some good points, well said. While I am an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment as well as the Freedom of Speech, we have to accept that these rights come with the responsibility of using them properly. As a society we far too often behave as if a “right” does not have an equal and sometimes superseding demand to act with careful thought and responsibility. Therefore we get council meetings where constituents shout down the opposing side; or people carrying firearms into businesses where such displays are far beyond the ordinary; we lose all civility and risk losing the freedom as well. For this reason I cannot support OC Texas right to protest in that manner, because their tactics are foolish at best and can easily be perceived as threating and dangerous in broader public opinion. And whether we like it or not, that opinion does matter.

Well put.

I like the open carry law because it allows me to carry my rifles to the truck without a case. Otherwise, I conceal carry and do that so I do not draw attention to myself. I did however open carry a pistol for awhile when I live in Virginia.

I understand what these guys are doing, I do believe it is our right to be able to have a firearm on us at all times. However, carrying a pistol concealed is way different than showing up in a store with an AR-15 over your shoulder. There is a right way to do it and a wrong way, and forcing people to become comfortable with firearms over night is the wrong way.

In Virginia we would have open carry BBQ's, various events, and we would allow vendors to come promote there as well, they were 100% open to the public. I believe that is a better way then showing up 10 deep at a Chili's fully armed.

These rights do not come with responsibilities, they come FROM responsibilities. When the nation was founded each and every one of us was issued a set of responsibilities. As citizens, as parents, as members of the community. "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" is a plain, simple statement recognizing in our highest law that the people have, that's each individual person, the right to be so equipped as he or she may deem necessary to fulfill those responsibilities. There is no ambiguity within the second amendment. Any operation of government, or anyone else, to disarm the people could, and I believe should, be construed as an act of war against them. One does not, in any way, attempt to disarm a free people without a malicious ulterior motive. It is always, and without exception, the act of a tyrant.

It is not a one size fits all type of a thing. If you are out in west Texas and it is hot and you have been out shooting and the vehicle's door lock isn't working so you don't want to leave your rifle in the vehicle while you stop at a road side place for a cool drink. Where's the harm? You are around like minded people, 90% plus themselves hunters and shooters, You walk up to the counter and say, "Excuse me but my truck's door lock is broken, mind if I prop my rifle up here" You have pulled the bolt out and back, anyone can see it is not ready to shoot. I'd say- probably not going to be an issue.
But let's say you drive all the way home to Austin where everyone wants to keep it weird and you stop at some College spot near the University and haul in your rifle- scare the heck out of everyone.
If we all practice a little common sense, we do OURSELVES a favor by not creating situations that cast a bad light on us.
It's not just firearms, a few years back I was in the city at an antique shop looking at old tools. They had a broadax for sale at a bargain price so I bought it, paid cash and started out the door and then thought to myself, "Wonder what will happen with me walking down a city street with this thing in my hand?" So I went back into the store and asked them to wrap the thing up in paper.