Man well within his rights, might be arrested OCing.

[eye95]

...are you guys dense?...

There is no point in discussing anything with someone who thinks the only reason that his argument is not persuasive is the inability of others to understand him.

Moving on.

 

[protect our rights]

There is no point in discussing anything with someone who thinks the only reason that his argument is not persuasive is the inability of others to understand him.

Moving on.

+1

 

[Deepdiver36]

Personally, I'd think, "Cool. OC is really making progress."

I want to clarify. I relate a story about a person OC'ing a long gun and shooting a police officer and you respond "Cool. OC is really making progress."

Is this really what you ment to say or did I miss something?

 

[eye95]

I want to clarify. I relate a story about a person OC'ing a long gun and shooting a police officer and you respond "Cool. OC is really making progress."

Is this really what you ment to say or did I miss something?

You missed something. Look for a post asking what we'd think.

 

[Deepdiver36]

You missed something. Look for a post asking what we'd think.

Thanks. It did not seem like you. Glad I asked for clarification.

 

[eye95]

Thanks. It did not seem like you. Glad I asked for clarification.

No problem. I can see where the juxtapositions of our posts created and elevated huh?-factor.

 

[JC_Biggs]

at least the article was fair in presenting the topic..

 

[j4l]

There is no point in discussing anything with someone who thinks the only reason that his argument is not persuasive is the inability of others to understand him.

Moving on.

Unless they prove to me that they dont, with each subsequent post..:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[j4l]

Be careful using the term common sense. They don't like to hear that in here. IMO it's better not to give the Anti-guns any more ammo than they need to try to get our rights restricted any more than what they already are. Pulling stupid Rambo stunts carrying a long gun at the mall is just the kind of ammo they need. If we abuse are rights we loose more and more of our rights. Look at California for example; it's OK to OC but your gun cannot be loaded. What good is a gun if the only one that has a loaded gun are cops and bad guys. Where does that leave us law abiding citizens?

BINGO. FINALLY, SOMEONE , "gets it".
Thank you, I was beginning to lose hope for most folks.

 

[protect our rights]

BINGO. FINALLY, SOMEONE , "gets it".
Thank you, I was beginning to lose hope for most folks.

No crime was committed, period.

 

[sharkey]

BINGO. FINALLY, SOMEONE , "gets it".

Unfortunately, it wasn't you.

 

[SavageOne]

IF YOU ABUSE YOUR RIGHTS; YOU WILL LOSE YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!

How does one "abuse" a right? I understand "exercise", I'm also wondering who gets to decide when it becomes "abuse". If a person is simply carrying a slung LG, I would be of the opinion that they are exercising their rights. If a person is waving a LG around in threatening manner, then that person is at the very least brandishing the LG and that would be a criminal act not an abuse of a right.

Is the abuse defined by what the majority would do in a given instance? If that's the case isn't CC the form of carry that the majority of those who carry chose. Should they then have the ability to say we are abusing our right?

As I understand the situation, the man was within his right to be carrying and violated no law in that regard. So what abuse are you referring to and if you would be so kind what criteria do you use to differentiate between "exercise" and "abuse".

 

[j4l]

Simple:

exercise= carry within the right, in the right places, at the right time,where/when appropriate.

abuse= go wandering about in inappropriate time/place for the express intention of riling up everyone just to get some attention and "make a point" that doesnt need to be made. (kind of like a silly child)

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Really, folks. Are grown, educated adults actually going to tell all of us here that just because we "can" do something means we always "should" do something-even when we know it's less than the brightest idea to do so?

 

[Lady Glock]

Simple:

exercise= carry within the right, in the right places, at the right time,where/when appropriate.

abuse= go wandering about in inappropriate time/place for the express intention of riling up everyone just to get some attention and "make a point" that doesnt need to be made. (kind of like a silly child)

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Really, folks. Are grown, educated adults actually going to tell all of us here that just because we "can" do something means we always "should" do something-even when we know it's less than the brightest idea to do so?

That's how you feel...that's fine. Don't carry anything that makes you feel uncomfortable, that's your right. I won't try to force you to do something that doesn't seem right to you. Don't try to force me to do something that I feel comfortable with that is within the confines of the law. It is my right, and I won't let anyone force me to stop doing something that is my right.

See how that works? It's a right and we are all capable of exercising that right in whatever way we see fit, as long as it's not illegal. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[eddallen1958]

How does one "abuse" a right? I understand "exercise", I'm also wondering who gets to decide when it becomes "abuse". If a person is simply carrying a slung LG, I would be of the opinion that they are exercising their rights. If a person is waving a LG around in threatening manner, then that person is at the very least brandishing the LG and that would be a criminal act not an abuse of a right.

Is the abuse defined by what the majority would do in a given instance? If that's the case isn't CC the form of carry that the majority of those who carry chose. Should they then have the ability to say we are abusing our right?

As I understand the situation, the man was within his right to be carrying and violated no law in that regard. So what abuse are you referring to and if you would be so kind what criteria do you use to differentiate between "exercise" and "abuse".

OK, lets define abuse straight from the Dictionary:
Abuse: a corrupt practice or custom
improper or excessive use

Here's something to think about. Just as we have the right to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights, the Anti-guns also have the right to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. So now what happens is we have some guy that wants to play Rambo and has already been confronted by the police 3 time. This gets the Anti-guns in an uproar and they start shooting off their mouths and making a big thing out of it. Next, our dear government sticks their noses into it and wants to make them happy so they think up new laws to restrict the rights that the 2nd Amendment gives us. Maybe they can't completely take our rights away but they can sure make things miserable for us.

Unlike many others, I think of everyone when I carry, not just myself. I don't have the screw you attitude and carry like Rambo just because I can. I don't try to make people unconfortable when I carry and don't really run in to anyone that gets unconfortable because I carry.

Either way, I will still be carrying no matter how much they restrict OC. I have my CWL so I can CC but I still like to OC. Why start a fire just because we have matches.

 

[protect our rights]

OK, lets define abuse straight from the Dictionary:
Abuse: a corrupt practice or custom
improper or excessive use

Which one of these little things fits what this guy was doing?

So now what happens is we have some guy that wants to play Rambo and has already been confronted by the police 3 time.

I hate how all the anti-rights people (Yes including you now) keep saying "this guy had run-ins with the police 3 times now." That doesn't mean anything. I had a string of 2 in one week abut 2 months ago. Does that automatically mean I am trying to get into these situations. Does that mean that I am a criminal? OK so the guy has gotten harassed 3 times by police for exercising his rights... So you KNOW for a fact that this guy went out that day with the intent to "terrorize" the community? Playing Rambo? Can you define that please? I just don't see the similarities.

 

[j4l]

"OK so the guy has gotten harassed 3 times by police for exercising his rights... So you KNOW for a fact that this guy went out that day with the intent to "terrorize" the community? Playing Rambo? Can you define that please? I just don't see the similarities. "

Well, gee, thnx for defining "dense" for me.
Here goes:
1) Any gun shops/sporting goods outfitters, firing ranges or other Long -Gun related products/services or facilities anywhere even REMOTELY NEAR the area he was stopped?

No/None/Zip/.. hence, not a whole lot of really sensible reasons for doing so, beyond "it's legal" to do so at that time and place.

2) Any North American game animals known to frequent the shopping mall that might provide him a trophy oppty, or the chance to put some game meat in the fridge?...
mmm.....doubtful in the extreme.
Or, just for the benefit of a doubt here, any recent incidents with loose zoo-animals or bear or other dangerous predatory game that might find it's way into the shopping mall, thus justifying his being the one guy to be equipped to deal with same?
mmmmm.....no.

Hence, no sensible reason to go strolling through the mall with a rifle..

3) "3 times by police for exercising his rights" Naw, say it isnt so? This guy? You gotta be kidding- he couldnt possibly be dense enough to go out of his way to incite the shopping populace,aggravate the cops, and draw un-wanted attentions to himself for yet A FOURTH TIME- with anything other than an intent to experience exactly what he got.

CASE CLOSED- THREAD=DONE.

 

[protect our rights]

CASE CLOSED- THREAD=DONE.

OK? how o you know he wasn't going to a friends house to sell his gun?

*****Personal attack deleted by Moderator *****
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks .....



.

..............................--Moderator Response--
LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

The opportunity to address the topic was provided. Past time to close it.