Open carry stop of two law abiding citizens. Being patronized. Wisconsin

[carolina guy]

So does that mean that the fetus should be considered a separate entity / individual or not? It certainly doesn't argue that it should be treated one way in one case and a different way in another...

That is the $1,000,000 question...

 

[eye95]

So then you see my point - on the one hand, a fetus is just a part of the female's body that is incubating it and has no separate identity, but on the other hand that same fetus is a separate individual that can cause additional or more severe charges to be attached to a crime committed against the female. Either it is an individual with its own rights, or it is not, but currently it is treated both ways, and the only difference is whether or not the female has expressed a desire to keep the fetus.

Actually, the woman can have an abortion scheduled for tomorrow and, if the unborn child is killed today, the killer can be charged with manslaughter or worse.

Only the mother and her accomplice (the abortionist) can murder the unborn baby without recourse.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[protias]

 

[fjpro2a]

Exactly

Excellent post, and funny to boot. I plead guilty to being an accessory to going off course. Will try to refrain in the future.

 

[eye95]

I wonder if folks try to enforce subject matter in private conversations. Discussions wander. Get over it.

BTW, ironically, the post bemoaning the thread going off-topic is, itself, off-topic, and has sent the thread in yet another direction.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[dakatak87]

Back to the original topic

After watching the video and recalling recent conversations, my take is this;

What about being innocent until proven guilty? You are not a criminal until you commit a criminal act. Possessing a firearm IAW state and federal law is not probable cause to commit a crime.

When the officer said that a person carrying CCW would pull out their pistol and fire on a person that walks into a place with a long gun, that was out right ridiculous. So, A LAC would not shoot a guy just for possessing any firearm. I can't say the same for LE.

The topic of don't carry because it will cause us to loose our carry is discussed on another thread. However, it fits into a response to the two cops; "ignorance of the law is no excuse," right? So the "peoples" ignorance of what is not banned by law should be no excuse. What ever is chosen to open carry is done so with however much decision to educate the public that Open Carry okay. (Against forum rules I say this, I look forward to occasionally OC a long gun)

I say that these two OC talked too much and should have been more eager to depart the stop.
I can only hope that if/when I am stopped, I keep a cool head and depart the stop within 5 minutes.


http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-may-continue-to-OC!&highlight=don't+continue

 

[cirrusly]

I'm going to air an opinion here that I realize is probably in opposition with many if not most here-

I agree with the LEO, OC of a long-gun in a public setting in this day-of-age does cause mass panic, and may be detrimental to our right to carry long-term. The mass hysteria can be a catalyst for rash, unconstitutional legislation.

From a reason-ability factor a handgun is a much more practical daily OC firearm than a long-gun. Thus- people are more apt to correctly digest the concept of "carrying for self-defense" when they observe handgun OC.

So, I encourage and obviously support handgun OC, but feel quite differently about long-gun OC.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[cirrusly]

Something that is irritating referenced in the video- although there is no school in sight, thanks to the magical 1000' radius from school grounds, the LEOs determined the "suspects" were within the boundaries specified by the federal GFSZ Act, and if they didn't have Wisconsin CCWs they could've and probably would've been arrested, and this video would've ended very differently.

Further proof that all the GFSZ Act does is screw with law-abiding citizens.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[protias]

I'm going to air an opinion here that I realize is probably in opposition with many if not most here-

I agree with the LEO, OC of a long-gun in a public setting in this day-of-age does cause mass panic, and may be detrimental to our right to carry long-term. The mass hysteria can be a catalyst for rash, unconstitutional legislation.

From a reason-ability factor a handgun is a much more practical daily OC firearm than a long-gun. Thus- people are more apt to correctly digest the concept of "carrying for self-defense" when they observe handgun OC.

So, I encourage and obviously support handgun OC, but feel quite differently about long-gun OC.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That would be like saying we should only CC because OC "causes mass hysteria."

 

[cirrusly]

That would be like saying we should only CC because OC "causes mass hysteria."

Not at all, protias. Long-gun OC is perceived differently than hand-gun OC. So much that there is different legislation surrounding the two in most states, and heck, different forums and sites for each.

When we OC daily for the necessity of self-protection we use hand-guns. I have never met anyone who (for strictly self-defense purposes) carries a long-gun, because there is no practicality for it. Thus, when I see someone strolling down the street with the rifle/long-gun, am I apt to correctly conclude, "ah that man is carrying his daily self-defense weapon, so I'm sure it is safe"? Probably not. Instead, I will wonder why a man is strolling with a rifle.

Conversely, if I see someone with a holstered handgun, I would approach them and ask if they're a fellow member on opencarry.org :lol:

Point being is- the practicality to carry a long-gun daily is not present. Thus, there will naturally be alarm. I agree that it should be legal, and when the situation is incidental to long-gun carry, then okay. For instance, if you walk to the range and have a sling, but no case for your long-gun. By all means, OC.

Now, if there is "mass hysteria" over carriage of a holstered handgun, that hysteria is unreasonable, because the practicality to carry for defensive purposes is very present in our society, and should be commonly accepted.

 

[protias]

Not at all, protias. Long-gun OC is perceived differently than hand-gun OC. So much that there is different legislation surrounding the two in most states, and heck, different forums and sites for each.

When we OC daily for the necessity of self-protection we use hand-guns. I have never met anyone who (for strictly self-defense purposes) carries a long-gun, because there is no practicality for it. Thus, when I see someone strolling down the street with the rifle/long-gun, am I apt to correctly conclude, "ah that man is carrying his daily self-defense weapon, so I'm sure it is safe"? Probably not. Instead, I will wonder why a man is strolling with a rifle.

Conversely, if I see someone with a holstered handgun, I would approach them and ask if they're a fellow member on opencarry.org :lol:

Point being is- the practicality to carry a long-gun daily is not present. Thus, there will naturally be alarm. I agree that it should be legal, and when the situation is incidental to long-gun carry, then okay. For instance, if you walk to the range and have a sling, but no case for your long-gun. By all means, OC.

Now, if there is "mass hysteria" over carriage of a holstered handgun, that hysteria is unreasonable, because the practicality to carry for defensive purposes is very present in our society, and should be commonly accepted.

So lets say you were sitting in a movie theater when a mad man enters in and starts murdering people. Would you rather have a rifle or a handgun?

Please listen to these three episodes and then come back.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wellarmedradio/2013/09/09/well-armed-radio--sunday-sept-8th

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wellar...adio-sept-14-911-anniversary-special-broadcas

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wellarmedradio/2013/09/23/well-armed-radio--sunday-sept22nd

 

[cirrusly]

I would obviously rather have a rifle in that scenario. However- OCing a rifle daily is not practical. Do you? Everyday, wherever you go?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[protias]

I would obviously rather have a rifle in that scenario. However- OCing a rifle daily is not practical. Do you? Everyday, wherever you go?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nope, but why should anyone care if I do? So I should only exercise my right to bear arms in a certain way?

 

[cirrusly]

Nope, but why should anyone care if I do? So I should only exercise my right to bear arms in a certain way?

I'll even add to the counter-argument: "Well, if the right is not exercised, we will lose it!" Similarly, my signature regularly reads, " keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure," so did their vision only include hand-guns?

This is true, a right needs to be exercised, and obviously the forefathers did not imply only "handguns" or carrying a certain way. However, instead of randomly strolling the street with a long-gun, leaving citizens (including pro-2Aers) distressed and confounded, there are more responsible ways to exercise the right.

As previously discussed: The practicality to carry a long-gun daily is not present. Thus, there will naturally be alarm. Because the practicality to carry for defensive purposes is very present in our society, and should be commonly accepted, it's more feasible identify law-abiding citizens with a holstered handgun, and coach "gun grabbers" to expect such.

Exercise the right irresponsibly, and it gives the "gun grabbers" more "ammunition" to pass paranoia based, ineffective legislation.

You already agree there is no practical need for you to carry a long-gun daily. Yet, it's essential to exercise the right. So, instead of encouraging others to gallivant down the road wielding a long-gun, why not organize a structured, long-gun OC march? Thus, the right is being exercised responsibly.

But to directly answer your question: You should care that the arms are beared responsibly because you want those rights to not be inhibited by unconstitutional legislation, conjured up by gun grabbers, and justified by irresponsible exercise of the right.

 

[protias]

I'll even add to the counter-argument: "Well, if the right is not exercised, we will lose it!" Similarly, my signature regularly reads, " keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure," so did their vision only include hand-guns?

This is true, a right needs to be exercised, and obviously the forefathers did not imply only "handguns" or carrying a certain way. However, instead of randomly strolling the street with a long-gun, leaving citizens (including pro-2Aers) distressed and confounded, there are more responsible ways to exercise the right.

As previously discussed: The practicality to carry a long-gun daily is not present. Thus, there will naturally be alarm. Because the practicality to carry for defensive purposes is very present in our society, and should be commonly accepted, it's more feasible identify law-abiding citizens with a holstered handgun, and coach "gun grabbers" to expect such.

Exercise the right irresponsibly, and it gives the "gun grabbers" more "ammunition" to pass paranoia based, ineffective legislation.

You already agree there is no practical need for you to carry a long-gun daily. Yet, it's essential to exercise the right. So, instead of encouraging others to gallivant down the road wielding a long-gun, why not organize a structured, long-gun OC march? Thus, the right is being exercised responsibly.

But to directly answer your question: You should care that the arms are beared responsibly because you want those rights to not be inhibited by unconstitutional legislation, conjured up by gun grabbers, and justified by irresponsible exercise of the right.

Woah there. Where did I ever say you shouldn't carry a long gun because it isn't "practical." Quit putting words in my mouth because I never said that and nor will I ever say that. I don't care what a person carries, how they carry, or even if they choose to not carry and trust the police to protect them.

Why don't you go recheck your beliefs? You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth!

 

[cirrusly]

Woah there. Where did I ever say you shouldn't carry a long gun because it isn't "practical." Quit putting words in my mouth because I never said that and nor will I ever say that. I don't care what a person carries, how they carry, or even if they choose to not carry and trust the police to protect them.

Why don't you go recheck your beliefs? You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth!

I strongly support OC of handguns. I do not support regular OC of long-guns outside of organized rally or events incidental to the carriage of the weapon.

You can disagree, that's fine. I stand by my original post.

 

[protias]

I strongly support OC of handguns. I do not support regular OC of long-guns outside of organized rally or events incidental to the carriage of the weapon.

You can disagree, that's fine. I stand by my original post.

I'm guessing you still didn't listen to these.

So lets say you were sitting in a movie theater when a mad man enters in and starts murdering people. Would you rather have a rifle or a handgun?

Please listen to these three episodes and then come back.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wellarmedradio/2013/09/09/well-armed-radio--sunday-sept-8th

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wellar...adio-sept-14-911-anniversary-special-broadcas

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wellarmedradio/2013/09/23/well-armed-radio--sunday-sept22nd

 

[wimwag]

I'm going to air an opinion here that I realize is probably in opposition with many if not most here-

I agree with the LEO, OC of a long-gun in a public setting in this day-of-age does cause mass panic, and may be detrimental to our right to carry long-term. The mass hysteria can be a catalyst for rash, unconstitutional legislation.

From a reason-ability factor a handgun is a much more practical daily OC firearm than a long-gun. Thus- people are more apt to correctly digest the concept of "carrying for self-defense" when they observe handgun OC.

So, I encourage and obviously support handgun OC, but feel quite differently about long-gun OC.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I believe OC of a long gun causes panic to those looking to be offended. Especially in WI. I was wearing the required blaze orange on the third day of gun deer and was the victim of this moronic behavior. Add police harassment to that...
Sent using Tapatalk 2.