When exactly did it become acceptable for people to parade in public with long guns and chest rigs loaded with high-capacity magazines? This makes no sense to me.
As a youngster I routinely kept a .410 shotgun in my junior-high locker, because the school was on the edge of town and I hunted rabbits when class was out. That was considered pretty normal behavior, but if anyone walked down Main Street or protested in front of the governor's office or walked through K-Mart with a slung AR-15, they'd be arrested in a heartbeat. After the arrest they'd be ridiculed as being a jackass and a idiot by the entire community.
I do not like this trend of rifles in public, or the open cary of loaded handguns. I think it's very immature and irresponsible, and I'm at a complete loss as to why it's either prudent or necessary or even allowed by law in a civilized society.
Call me nuts, but a society in which it's acceptable for people to cary loaded assault rifles in public is not a society I want to live in. Been there and done that...I traveled extensively in the tribal areas of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border prior to 9-11, where every male over the age of ten was armed at all times. It was REAL far from a utopia. Watch two men of dubious intellect, both armed with machine guns, argue over the price of cashews in a crowded market with nothing substantial to hide behind and you quickly realize that there is a very definite downside to allowing the unfettered carrying of weapons in a society.
The only rational reaction to seeing heavily armed people in public is to arm yourself with equal weaponry. To me, that feels a lot like the start of a second civil war.
How exactly did this happen? I do not see any wisdom in it.
I agree 100%, unless your state has mandated open carry only, it is not only reckless, it freaks people out, not to mention someone could walk up behind you and snatch it from you. As for AR's in public, I don't get it either
Ken
First of all I do not own any " assault" type fire arms. I live in an open carry state. At first thought an AR could seem excessive but that raises the question how much gun is to much gun. When I was growing up there were rifles and shotguns in almost every pickup in the parking lot and no one thought twice about it. So we have to be careful not to fall under the some fire arms are bad of the gun control mob. I see it the same as why do you need a 10mm instead of a 380.
I agree that the open carrying of AR's and other weapons during peaceful demonstrations is not good practice and hurts the cause of gun ownership in this country.
The couple in St. Louis asking the trespassers on their property to leave while holding an AR was perfectly OK as far as I'm concerned.
The Militia in Michigan protesting in the State Capital Building with their AR's made no sense to me.
Just because you have the right to do something does not always make it right.
I own a bunch of AR's, both -15 and -10, as well as a number of other magazine fed main battle rifles.
That said, I am not a big fan of the ultra-right wing gun crowd marching around with their guns slung. I don't much care if it is an AR, AK, Galil or Remy 700. If you need a rifle you should be behind cover.
OTOH, even though I think they are dumb to do so, I do support their right. My state is uber pro-gun, but even here we now have a law that says guns carried in public must be in a holster/scabbard/case. I think this is a good compromise.
I would also comment that an AR-15 pistol is about the only carry gun that makes sense for my mom. She can't pull the trigger on a DA revolver, and can't cycle the slide on a semi-auto. But she can run an AR pistol just fine. The current law in my state would allow her, if she desired, to carry her AR pistol in a holster if she wished.
I guess my point is we should be generous with our assumptions. Just cause I can't think of a use case doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
Well if it were peaceful protest, I'd carry just like any other day with conceal carry IWB. If it were criminal unrest, I wouldn't be going to that type rally unless it came to me, like it did for the couple in St. Louis asking the trespassers on their property while being armed! I due support firearms ownership, live in a state of open carry, but I don't like to advertise myself as carrying a weapon for self defense! If it came down to it I would carry the AR if deemed necessARy!
However the BLM movement and Antifa have many followers that are carrying weapons of all sorts and also making verbal threats as well as pushing the limits of personal space (wanting a confrontation) and actually physical contact (with and without harmful objects) to include bodily harm to people. >:D As far as these two groups are concerned, I consider them domestic terrorist and should be deal with as such! There are those in government and also media that are to blame for fueling these uprisings and glorifying their criminal actions! >:(
I will also add that the results of the Nov. elections will not likely change the criminal attacks and they may even escalate the situation! ::)
Make no mistake, both sides are armed. The media has and will continue to show the ultra-right as the only side that is armed. (Garrett Foster was a BLM protester that was carrying an AK-47 the night he was fatally shot).
This is a lesson I'm trying to teach my kids. (If you feel you need a firearm to protect yourself in an area of the city you don't live in, then you don't go there). Have the rifle, pistol, shotgun, open carry, or concealed. Do not place yourself in a situation that may cause you harm.
I carry open and concealed, but I would drive 50 miles out of the way to avoid a dangerous situation.
I know I'm slight off topic, but open carry in a protest is not just an ultra-right wing problem.
Morning jthoresen,
I totally agree, staying away from known bad areas is huge. As for our relatively crime free dinky little town of aprx 4000, I always carry, as there's nut cases everywhere
Ken
I don't think it really matters whether the people displaying weapons are on the far-left or the far-right or on some non-linear dimension entirely. Nor do I think it matters if you call a weapon a assault rifle or a enhanced sporting tool...any firearm principally designed for efficiency in the killing of people is just that, regardless of what name you give it or how you use it.
I believe the cultural and legal acceptance of people walking the public streets of our towns and cities with more armament than our GI's carried is Vietnam is nonsensical and corrosive to our society and democracy and country. I think it's also fantastically impolite, tactically inept, and one sign of a marginalized intellect and stymied personality. And that's from someone who can match those people gun for gun, magazine for magazine, and more than likely outshoot most of them by a significant margin.
In any healthy society, cultural and political norms are in a constant state of pendulum, and the people who are needlessly pushing the pendulum as far as they can in one direction are simultaneously adding energy to the inevitable opposite swing.
As Americans we like to believe that we are superior, and you need only look at the Apollo missions to see some of the superior things our country has accomplished. But people are people the world over, with the same basic drives and desires and weaknesses. The citizens of Somalia or Lebanon or Sarajevo didn't plan on the civil conflicts that destabilized and destroyed their countries, but it happened anyway.
They used to say that an armed society is a polite society, but what happens when a society is both armed and insolent? If we as Americans cannot voice our opinions or oppositions without having a assault rifle slung across our chests, we're pretty screwed. There isn't any reason in the world we cannot end up like a hundred other failed countries, and peoples' proclivity to punctuate their political or social view with the brandishing of a weapon, regardless of what that view might be, is not a good sign.
I do not understand why it is allowed, either by law or by cultural acceptance, regardless of whether someone is a gun-owner or not.
I can appreciate your passion, Muskrat, and in a perfect world I might even agree with you from a practical pragmatic viewpoint.
I disagree on principle, as carrying a rifle is not inherently an act of violence nor is it inherently threatening. In a healthy society, responsible citizens who respect each other do not harbor suspicions or fear of each other such as would make open carry of any firearm culturally unacceptable. One of the foundational principles of American culture is "innocent until proven guilty", and that applies as much to interpersonal interactions in daily life as it does to application of the law.
As to the current cultural moment, I don't think it should be surprising at all that responsible peaceful folks are feeling compelled to be more overt about their firearm possession in a time when political violence is being openly encouraged by national media and high profile politicians and other cultural leaders. I honestly don't think it should be difficult to understand, and speaking for myself I won't condemn it in the current context.
Quote from: Keiichi on September 08 2020 11:43:38 AM MDT
...
I disagree on principle, as carrying a rifle is not inherently an act of violence nor is it inherently threatening...
Openly carrying a weapon in public is not inherently threatening? Seriously? So if you watched a person walk into your kids grade school with a assault rifle and magazine pouches, you wouldn't see that as a potential threat, since that person is innocent until proven guilty? If a person came up to you on the street and aggressively asked you for money in the way many panhandlers do, you wouldn't find it to be more threatening if that person was also carrying a AR pistol on their chest rig?
You can say that there's no reasonable justification for a person to cary a assault rifle into a grade school, with which I agree. I say there's no reasonable justification for carrying a assault rifle at a public protest against face mask mandates. In both scenarios, the presence of the weapon IS inherently threatening. In both scenarios, the potential for public harm vastly out-weighs whatever benefit the rifle carrier feels they are achieving.
Obviously others feel differently. What concerns me greatly is the inability or refusal of people to see the potential future consequences of this most uncivil and unnecessary trend.
One thing I guarantee, even without any large scale bloodshed this public display of hardware is doing nothing to sway neutral people towards gun rights...and their vote counts just as much as anyone else's.
It is only a potential threat in the same way that any person posessing any tool for any reason is a potential threat. I personally would not view an openly carried rifle as any more inherently threatening than openly driving an SUV or openly carrying a chainsaw.
Would I be paying attention? Undoubtedly. But I would have no more reason to believe that the man in your school example was there to attack the school than to believe he was there to pick up his daughter after classes for a trip to the range.
Again, this is on principle in a healthy society. Clearly we don't live in a healthy society, but your position is clearly based in the kind of irrational fear that drives so much of the cultural division in this country. It isn't true that police are out hunting black people, just as it isn't true that someone open carrying a rifle and gear should be assumed to be an attacker. Perpetuating this fear as you appear intent on isn't helpful, and won't result in healing the divisions that do exist. The reality is your point of view is much more in line with views that will result in the potential future consequences you're cautioning against.
But, we're probably going to have to agree to disagree.
Quote from: Keiichi on September 08 2020 12:48:14 PM MDT
But, we're probably going to have to agree to disagree.
I can live with that. Thank you.
I would like to think that well-trained and respectful, disciplined civilians would either NOT be in these public venues or wouldn't be openly toting a rifle???
Pat
Quote from: Keiichi on September 08 2020 11:43:38 AM MDT
I can appreciate your passion, Muskrat, and in a perfect world I might even agree with you from a practical pragmatic viewpoint.
I disagree on principle, as carrying a rifle is not inherently an act of violence nor is it inherently threatening. In a healthy society, responsible citizens who respect each other do not harbor suspicions or fear of each other such as would make open carry of any firearm culturally unacceptable. One of the foundational principles of American culture is "innocent until proven guilty", and that applies as much to interpersonal interactions in daily life as it does to application of the law.
As to the current cultural moment, I don't think it should be surprising at all that responsible peaceful folks are feeling compelled to be more overt about their firearm possession in a time when political violence is being openly encouraged by national media and high profile politicians and other cultural leaders. I honestly don't think it should be difficult to understand, and speaking for myself I won't condemn it in the current context.
It seems to me that most (not all) people open carrying a firearm are doing so to draw attention to themselves and not because they're concerned with self defense as an open AR in any kind of protest situation is likely to spur and not inhibit confrontation and then it gets worse. When a mob of protestors surrounds the guy with the gun what then? They guy or gal (unlikely) carrying is then is a most difficult situation and the mob ain't about to back off. Does he shoot? At what point? All in all the open gun seems to me to exacerbate the situation.
What about the guy who just has to open carry in Walmart? I mean, what's the point? Again, it seems to me it is an attention getting device that accomplishes nothing other than allowing the carrier to think nicely of himself and making others nervous and anti-gun. A concealed gun is far more effective than an open one as no one else should know it is there and it becomes an unpleasant surprise for someone if it has to be drawn. That said I live in a rural area of the Rockies and have carried concealed for more than 30 years without once feeling I might need to remove the pistol from concealment. I did once unsnap the keeper when in the woods and hearing what sounded like a mountain lion sneaking around. It never went any further though, the strap was snapped again and I continued walking.
@Sneed
I'm not addressing tactical considerations; rather Muskrat's cultural prescription.
We as a community should always be working to normalize the presence of firearms in everyday life, and to diminish the fear and suspicion that is the source of distrust at the mere presence of a firearm. That's what I'm addressing. The more progress we make in that effort, the less likely for there to be the kind of tactical issues that exist simply walking through a Walmart with a slung rifle. The more the open carry stigma is reduced, the more reasonable people will open carry and be comfortable seeing it, and the less correct you'll be about the intentions of individuals who do so today.
Quote from: Keiichi on September 08 2020 02:32:16 PM MDT
@Sneed
I'm not addressing tactical considerations; rather Muskrat's cultural prescription.
We as a community should always be working to normalize the presence of firearms in everyday life, and to diminish the fear and suspicion that is the source of distrust at the mere presence of a firearm. That's what I'm addressing. The more progress we make in that effort, the less likely for there to be the kind of tactical issues that exist simply walking through a Walmart with a slung rifle. The more the open carry stigma is reduced, the more reasonable people will open carry and be comfortable seeing it, and the less correct you'll be about the intentions of individuals who do so today.
I get that and conceptually agree HOWEVER it seems to me it just won't work and will have the opposite effect - as it seems to be doing. In the twenty first century in what's left of the U.S. open carry will never become normalized outside of rural areas. Of course I've been wrong before but I don't think so this time. (I didn't think so the other times either, so there's that.)
Quote from: Sneed on September 08 2020 03:10:56 PM MDT
Quote from: Keiichi on September 08 2020 02:32:16 PM MDT
@Sneed
I'm not addressing tactical considerations; rather Muskrat's cultural prescription.
We as a community should always be working to normalize the presence of firearms in everyday life, and to diminish the fear and suspicion that is the source of distrust at the mere presence of a firearm. That's what I'm addressing. The more progress we make in that effort, the less likely for there to be the kind of tactical issues that exist simply walking through a Walmart with a slung rifle. The more the open carry stigma is reduced, the more reasonable people will open carry and be comfortable seeing it, and the less correct you'll be about the intentions of individuals who do so today.
I get that and conceptually agree HOWEVER it seems to me it just won't work and will have the opposite effect - as it seems to be doing. In the twenty first century in what's left of the U.S. open carry will never become normalized outside of rural areas. Of course I've been wrong before but I don't think so this time. (I didn't think so the other times either, so there's that.)
I agree with Sneed.
It won't happen immediately, for sure; I believe it's extremely important to reframe conversations like this one as a start, which is my goal here - staying civil in doing so, which I think we have been.
With the way education has been and will continue to be disrupted in the near-term I think a great place to focus on is reintroducing firearms safety education in junior high and high school, along with hunting safety and expanding shooting sports.
Speaking of education, in Minnesota, Trap and Skeet is only second to football when it comes to high school sports 😀
http://mnclaytarget.com/2015/05/05/minnesotas-second-popular-hs-sport-trap-shooting-believe/
Yep, and last I read it's been by far the fastest growing high school sport. Very encouraging.
To be clear...I do not believe the unfettered open cary of firearms in civil society is conducive to building or maintaining a safe, secure, cohesive society, nor do I think it has any possible connection to skeet shooting, pheasant hunting, USPSA competitions or any other legitimate firearm recreation or self defense application. I am opposed to open carry in urban settings, and think that people who feel threatened or suspicious or uncomfortable around individuals who open cary are not wrong...they're spot on. I see open cary as not only bad tactics, but bad manners, and ultimately corrosive to gun ownership in this country. I do not see it as making anyone safer or more secure or normalizing firearms for people who are not enthusiasts, but rather just the opposite.
As I mentioned in my first post, I've lived in communities where virtually everyone carries a gun, all the time, everywhere. I did not find them to be places I wanted to live, and I do not want this country to become one of them. I do not want to live in a society where someone carrying a slung rifle though walmart is anything but alarming. I do not support building a society where that behavior is considered in any way normal.
This is all my opinion of course, and I respect that other perfectly intelligent and balanced people will have different opinions...including people who don't think there should be any guns at all. But I think it's incumbent on gun owners who believe as I do to speak up and not to be bullied by those who will say that if you're not 100% pro-gun in any conceivable circumstance, then you must be anti-gun.
I'm 100% for the responsible ownership of firearms, and 100% against irresponsible ownership. I do not see open cary in our nations towns and cities as responsible, and I am suspicious of the motives and/or maturity of people who believe that it is. I will stand against open cary in the public places of our country (especially the open cary of long guns) just as I will stand for personal gun ownership and the right of self defense. I think that more gun owners and CCW carriers who feel the same need to stand up and be heard, rather than be cowed by the fear that any support for reasonable gun disciplines will somehow result in the annihilation of all gun rights and the subsequent enslavement of the citizenry.
Lastly, I would like to complement the people who have been involved in this conversation for their civility. It is admirable and speaks well of this community.
Thanks Muskrat, I'm confident this has been a learning experience for all involved, as it has helped me to better understand many of these points better...Thank you!
Quote from: Muskrat on September 07 2020 08:20:58 PM MDT
When exactly did it become acceptable for people to parade in public with long guns and chest rigs loaded with high-capacity magazines? This makes no sense to me.
The trend started in Lexington Massachusetts around April 19, 1775. The British were attempting to disarm some cheeky colonials who were open carrying MUSKETS! ;)
FWIW I don't "open carry" and didn't do it when I was a plain clothes LEO in a tech field where I wore a polo and 5.11 pants most days. I threw a jacket, vest or button up shirt on when I went out in public. IMHO Marching into Starbucks with a slung AK is asinine. However, an organized multi-cultural group peacefully showing the VA Legislature that they are displeased about pending infringements might have brought a smile to the Founding Fathers faces. Like all things in life there times to be discreet and times to convince people who are trying to do you harm that you are capable of starting a ruckus.
Quote from: Muskrat on September 07 2020 08:20:58 PM MDT
The only rational reaction to seeing heavily armed people in public is to arm yourself with equal weaponry. To me, that feels a lot like the start of a second civil war.
The Libs have had a take over in their playbook since the 60's. They believe it is now or never and are using violence to try to re-make America. I believe we are in fact in a cold civil war, what keeps them from turning up the heat is that they don't know if the middle of the country will fish or cut bait.
It's amazing to me that even the gun community has been indoctrinated to think our guns should be kept hidden.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Quote from: Sneed on September 08 2020 03:10:56 PM MDT
Quote from: Keiichi on September 08 2020 02:32:16 PM MDT
@Sneed
I'm not addressing tactical considerations; rather Muskrat's cultural prescription.
We as a community should always be working to normalize the presence of firearms in everyday life, and to diminish the fear and suspicion that is the source of distrust at the mere presence of a firearm. That's what I'm addressing. The more progress we make in that effort, the less likely for there to be the kind of tactical issues that exist simply walking through a Walmart with a slung rifle. The more the open carry stigma is reduced, the more reasonable people will open carry and be comfortable seeing it, and the less correct you'll be about the intentions of individuals who do so today.
I get that and conceptually agree HOWEVER it seems to me it just won't work and will have the opposite effect - as it seems to be doing. In the twenty first century in what's left of the U.S. open carry will never become normalized outside of rural areas. Of course I've been wrong before but I don't think so this time. (I didn't think so the other times either, so there's that.)
If the public in general were that freaked out by open carry you wouldn't see positive movement for open carry and constitutional carry in multiple states.
I for one welcome it as see it as some semblance of restoring our Constitutional rights.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Quote from: Mike D on September 08 2020 08:04:21 PM MDT
It's amazing to me that even the gun community has been indoctrinated to think our guns should be kept hidden.
I have not been "indoctrinated" by anyone. My views are the rational and considered opinion of a person who learned to shoot rifles at age six, and handguns two years later. I was gifted a rifle at age nine and bought my first revolver at age 14, and I currently own, shoot and reload for just over thirty different firearms. My opinions are my own...not those of the gun-nuts or the anti-gun faction or anyone in-between. My own.
As for the popularity of open cary, I refer again to the social pendulum...it will swing opposite with equal or greater force soon enough...let's all hope it doesn't swing too far, but if it does you can't blame people who hold views similar to my own for that eventuality.
I'm not anti-gun; I'm pro civility. Pro common sense. Pro compromise in the name of the greater good.
If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, take a year off and go live in Pakistan or Somalia or the Congo or Iraq, and report back on how absolutely wonderful it is to live in a society where a assault rifle is necessary just to go out and buy groceries, because everyone else buying groceries is carrying one. Your opinion
might just change. Or not... Either way, until you've seen it first hand, you really don't know what it looks like.
I want to be clear as well Muskrat: I do respect your experience and do not intend any insult.
Our goal should be to find that social balance where inanimate objects do not engender fear or suspicion, and where well meaning neighbors can interact without threats. In my view, young and inexperienced as I may be, the first priority should be disconnecting the inanimate objects involved from how we treat each other.
The presence of a firearm should be no more alarming than the presence of a kitchen knife. That's my goal, and I know it's a lofty one.
With respect, the USA isn't Pakistan, Somalia, the Congo, or Iraq. We have social and cultural norms and foundational principles that they don't. Though we are in this cultural moment experiencing severe conflict, I truly believe we can find stability and compromise without fearing tools or those who choose to hold them.
We start that process not by perpetuating the same conflict we've experienced, but by educating our friends and neighbors and children how wrong it is and how to be responsible with tools that have been misused.
Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I truly believe that one of the roots of the division we're experiencing is the very fear and suspicion you've experienced. The right way out of it is not going to be found in that fear and suspicion, even when the greater good may look to be founded on it.
I'd very much like to sit down with you and chat face to face about this. Text chat in a forum is really not conducive to this kind of conversation. If we have that fortune in the future, I look forward to it.
Quote from: Muskrat on September 08 2020 09:45:56 PM MDT
Quote from: Mike D on September 08 2020 08:04:21 PM MDT
It's amazing to me that even the gun community has been indoctrinated to think our guns should be kept hidden.
I have not been "indoctrinated" by anyone. My views are the rational and considered opinion of a person who learned to shoot rifles at age six, and handguns two years later. I was gifted a rifle at age nine and bought my first revolver at age 14, and I currently own, shoot and reload for just over thirty different firearms. My opinions are my own...not those of the gun-nuts or the anti-gun faction or anyone in-between. My own.
As for the popularity of open cary, I refer again to the social pendulum...it will swing opposite with equal or greater force soon enough...let's all hope it doesn't swing too far, but if it does you can't blame people who hold views similar to my own for that eventuality.
I'm not anti-gun; I'm pro civility. Pro common sense. Pro compromise in the name of the greater good.
If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, take a year off and go live in Pakistan or Somalia or the Congo or Iraq, and report back on how absolutely wonderful it is to live in a society where a assault rifle is necessary just to go out and buy groceries, because everyone else buying groceries is carrying one. Your opinion might just change. Or not... Either way, until you've seen it first hand, you really don't know what it looks like.
IF openly carried guns are used for nefarious purposes as they often are in the places you mention (and actually admit to) I could see your point. But they aren't in the US.
We have been conditioned to think it's impolite to show our guns even though we are supposedly the freest country on earth.
If that isn't indoctrination, I don't k ow what is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Quote from: Keiichi on September 08 2020 11:43:38 AM MDT
I can appreciate your passion, Muskrat, and in a perfect world I might even agree with you from a practical pragmatic viewpoint.
I disagree on principle, as carrying a rifle is not inherently an act of violence nor is it inherently threatening. In a healthy society, responsible citizens who respect each other do not harbor suspicions or fear of each other such as would make open carry of any firearm culturally unacceptable. One of the foundational principles of American culture is "innocent until proven guilty", and that applies as much to interpersonal interactions in daily life as it does to application of the law.
As to the current cultural moment, I don't think it should be surprising at all that responsible peaceful folks are feeling compelled to be more overt about their firearm possession in a time when political violence is being openly encouraged by national media and high profile politicians and other cultural leaders. I honestly don't think it should be difficult to understand, and speaking for myself I won't condemn it in the current context.
Its pretty much as you have stated, we have had a shift in our culture and its perceptions. Once in my lifetime I could as a teenage wander about in public with a firearm and a few would mention being careful and others would tell me where to find some groundhogs or pheasnts etc depending on seasons. The firearm for most at that point in time, 50s &60s, was not considered a threat by the majority. Now its vertually the opposite. A lot of our culture has been influenced by the entertainment media , where special effects accentuate and hyperbolize(?) firearms and other weaponry. People now view most firearms as a threat. Of course most people have not had the fox in the chickens or the woodchuck in the stringbeans so they have little understanding and no appreciation for the domestic non-threatening use of firearms.
This seems to have lead to the need to "demonstrate" their power, strength, or what. On the other hand standing in front of your house or business with arms in hand is a statement. The former is probably more an expression of bravado. And of course with todays cultural base if one monkey does the second monkey has to do more.(no slurs intended, just the old inscription of imitation)
Quote from: Keiichi on September 08 2020 12:48:14 PM MDT
It is only a potential threat in the same way that any person posessing any tool for any reason is a potential threat. I personally would not view an openly carried rifle as any more inherently threatening than openly driving an SUV or openly carrying a chainsaw.
Would I be paying attention? Undoubtedly. But I would have no more reason to believe that the man in your school example was there to attack the school than to believe he was there to pick up his daughter after classes for a trip to the range.
Again, this is on principle in a healthy society. Clearly we don't live in a healthy society, but your position is clearly based in the kind of irrational fear that drives so much of the cultural division in this country. It isn't true that police are out hunting black people, just as it isn't true that someone open carrying a rifle and gear should be assumed to be an attacker. Perpetuating this fear as you appear intent on isn't helpful, and won't result in healing the divisions that do exist. The reality is your point of view is much more in line with views that will result in the potential future consequences you're cautioning against.
But, we're probably going to have to agree to disagree.
Please note my post in regards to the cultural perceptions of our current demographics. Those of us who have used firearms in common sporting or domestic manners dont have raised pulses under most presentations, HOWEVER, those individuals who rarely venture out of doors, think eating meat is a sin, think meat comes from a machine wrapped in plastic, think due to movies and TV guns are only for death and destruction and multiple etc's. These people are threatened, intimidted and repulsed by the public display(brandishment) of firearms. In fact therein lies a major problem, that bubble has to be broken but not by threat.
Quote from: Muskrat on September 08 2020 06:15:41 PM MDT
Lastly, I would like to complement the people who have been involved in this conversation for their civility. It is admirable and speaks well of this community.
It used to be that such conversations could occur in many online sites. No more, of course. Discussion is just not possible when everyone believes there are those who agree with them on everything and those who are dead wrong. With no contemplation and evaluation it all just becomes yelling at one another. The fact that that is not the case here is both exceptional and rewarding.
!!!
I will further extend my previous comments to say this: Too many locales have laws that make you a criminal if your concealed firearm becomes visible because open carry is not allowed.
I will continue to strongly support the legality of open-carry even if I don't generally agree with the way many people choose to open carry.
As my carry class instructor, explained, the reason Minnesota has open, and or concealed carry is that if you are reaching for something high on a store shelf, and your weapon becomes exposed, your not looking at a ticket for doing so
Ken
Quote from: sqlbullet on September 09 2020 04:16:13 PM MDT
I will continue to strongly support the legality of open-carry even if I don't generally agree with the way many people choose to open carry.
Why does it always have to be open carry of some tier two plastic pistol in a black cloth gun bucket holster with a Velcro strap? :o
If you're going to show off Have some class, wear a 1911 with ivory grips in a holster made out of some exotic animal hide!
:))
Interesting point regarding "accidental brandishing". I guess my two thoughts are that anyone entrusted to cary a concealed weapon should probably be expected to do it with enough forethought and skill that it's not going to be an issue. Also, it seems a WHOLE lot more prudent to simply rewrite the brandishing code to specify that it does not apply to someone who the CCW holder is not in conflict with seeing the weapon in a brief and accidental manner.
Folks have mentioned the issue of people being threatened by the sight of a weapon, but I think that context is key here.
Let's compare it to nudity. A naked person in a locker room isn't unusual...there's a reason to be naked in a locker room, and there's an expectation that if you go into a locker room you may well encounter naked people. It's akin to seeing someone at a firing range or farm field or deer stand with a rifle or shotgun...there's a reason for a person in that scenario to be carrying a long gun.
But encountering the same naked person from the locker room in the toy isle of walmart is an entirely different matter. While the nudity is the same, the context is not, and it's the display of socially inappropriate and illogical behavior which constitutes the threat.
To me, a person who carries a rifle at a downtown event is no different than someone attending the same event without any clothes...there is simply no good reason for it, and both of them just want to wag their junk in your face with no consideration for how it makes you feel. Whether they do harm or not, their motivations and decision making abilities are in grave doubt.
Frankly, I fear a armed person with questionable motivations and decision making abilities a whole lot more than naked one. The gun itself isn't the issue any more than the genitals are...it's the person who chooses to display them without just purpose and without any consideration for how other people might feel about it that's the vulgarity.
No doubt we have people who believe that it's appropriate to display a weapon anywhere. We also have people who feel it's appropriate to be naked anywhere, or to masturbate or copulate anywhere. None of those three activities cause harm to others in and of themselves, and of the three only the first constitutes an ability to physically harm others. But as a society we choose which behaviors are appropriate in public and which ones are not.
I get that you're coming to this discussion with strong beliefs, but the idea that open carrying a firearm is analogous to public nudity is ridiculous - even moreso that open carrying a firearm is a vice akin to a public pornographic display.
That rises well into the realm of prudishness founded on fearmongering exaggeration. It's the same outmoded logic that drove society-wide dress codes founded in fear of potentially encouraging sexual predation.
Some folks will likely agree with you, I suppose, but if that's the direction this discussion is going to go I'll step back as an observer. We're too far afield at that point.
I agree with Kelichi on most points. But I am with sqlbullet mostly.
I feel that grace should be extended in and towards people on this.
My freedom should not cause a weaker brother or sister to sin.
Just because I can doesn't mean I always should.
Common sense and situational awareness applies.
Remember written words always seem more severe than spoken ones.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well put sstewart
@sstewart Of course, practically speaking actually open carrying comes with all of the common sense considerations like obeying the law, situational awareness, avoiding getting yourself into an untenable situation in the first place, etc.
I don't disagree with any of that, and I've specifically avoided addressing it to keep my responses concise and focused.
I have no problem with practical rationale for avoiding open carry of any firearm. I personally don't open carry often, though I have open carried in hunting contexts as well as pro-2A political rally contexts, including carrying a rifle, and I've done my due diligence considering the practical pro's and con's. I will freely admit that I am far more comfortable with firearms than the vast majority of folks.
My goal here is press home the importance of the way we talk about this topic from the standpoint of politics, philosophy, how our positions are articulated, and making sure our goals and positions move us away from the fear-based current paradigm, as well as making sure our arguments don't feed into the same logic used by those who would perpetuate and exacerbate it; the latter is precisely where Muskrat's position is. A significant number of practical considerations against open carry are a consequence of it.
I may have used strong language in some points to press the importance of it, but I've been careful to choose my words to express specifically what I mean. If I've come across as negative or gratuitous in any way, I apologize.
I want to be clear... I am not talking about "accidental brandishing". There are places (Florida) where even partial exposure of a holstered gun can cause you legal problems.
Further, I can imagine scenarios where I may indeed want to go in a "public place" dressed as you describe. For instance, many years ago I was the assistant manager of a retail store. If something bumped the alarm I was first on the call list to go check it out as I lived the closest. The local LE was often busy with other calls and basically said they would not respond unless we looked and found evidence of a break in rather than a false alarm. Heading over there I would consider it completely reasonable to be prepared for trouble, as in rifle slung and some magazines available.
Your nudity example is apropos. I would suggest that in both cases, a nude person or a person open-carrying, there may be a need for an official response. A nude person is considered to be in trouble or in need of mental help when that response occurs. The armed man is, unfortunately, assumed to be a threat, when in fact they may be responding to a threat, or just have an anticipation that a threat may manifest.
The reality is if we have laws against nudity and you are innocently stuck outside your house cause you were letting the dog out, the responding officer will probably have a chuckle and you will have a red face. If, on the other hand, you are openly armed for an equally innocuous reason, you are at best going to jail for a bit and at worst going to the morgue.
I agree that most of the guys that open-carry at protests, etc, aren't helping the cause. But the reality is we need to find some way to normalize thinking of an armed man in public to the same way we think of a nude man in public: He probably needs help.
I like the idea of moving from fear and suspicion to helpful concern as a way to move the Overton window in the short term, but very much disagree that it should be the end goal to primarily associate open carry of firearms with mental illness in the cultural milieu.
We need to find a way to normalize open carry of a firearm with regular, law abiding, responsible behavior.
Here's an analogy that I think is appropriate as a starting point.
Who do we culturally trust to be in possession of an openly carried firearm? Police, servicemen, bank security. Why do we trust them? We believe that they have been appropriately trained and assume they will be law abiding and responsible.
Statistically speaking, automobiles are associated with death and injury significantly more often than firearms.
Who do we culturally trust to be in possession of an automobile? Pretty much every random stranger. Why do we trust them? Because drivers education is nearly universal and we assume that such a person is generally going to be responsible and law abiding. Part of that education is how to recognize the difference between responsible and irresponsible use of a vehicle.
I submit, an example of what we should be doing is to push for youth safety education for firearms to be as commonplace as drivers ed, and at a similar age. This isn't a novel idea. Decades ago, before the fear-based nerfing of the culture, youth firearm education was normal and possession of a firearm in public was not viewed anywhere near as negatively as it is today.
Quote from: Keiichi on September 10 2020 02:58:01 PM MDT
We need to find a way to normalize open carry of a firearm with regular, law abiding, responsible behavior.
Agreed - open carry needs to be normalized not feared.
(https://images.csmonitor.com/csmarchives/2010/03/guns_1.jpg?alias=standard_900x600nc)
Help doesn't mean mental illness. Could be a poor assistant manager going to clear the store after an alarm and he needs help with the task.
I guess I misunderstood when he specifically referred to appropriately attributing mental illness in the nude man analogy for open carry - which I still don't agree is a valid analogy... outside, I suppose, being helpful rather than suspicious more broadly, which is not the way Muskrat originally used it.
Fair enough, but I stand by my statement with that clarification.
Well...I think my nudity analogy has been misconstrued...I probably phased it inelegantly.
But I think lines in the sand are being drawn, and there probably isn't much productive reason to continue. I've reached the same point with people who don't think there should be any guns in society...intelligent and articulate people who's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. We heard each-other out, and agreed to disagree.
Our democracy is made up of people who think all guns should be destroyed and people who think weapons create some sort of utopia and they should be able to open cary assault rifles while grocery shopping...and people like me who think that the balance is somewhere in-between, but absolutely NOT at either extreme.
I'm as comfortable and skilled with firearms as any person I've ever met. I had a distinguished career as a sheriff's deputy in a meth-infested county where it was almost unheard of not to have someone at gunpoint two or three times a week. I went to work every day with three handguns, two shotguns and either a AR-15 or full-auto M-16, depending on the chores that day...I'm not intimidated by weaponry. And I think that in an urban setting the open cary of handguns is ridiculous, and open cary of assault rifles is just vulgar. I do not want to live in a society where either are considered normal, and I have no intention of moving.
There was a time in my life when I was more sympathetic with OC, but that was a LONG time ago and I've matured since then. If I had to choose between OC and going unarmed while in town today, I'd go unarmed...and that's from someone who's carried a gun virtually every day, while mowing the lawn and eating dinner and on vacation and at the dentist office and while getting my tires rotated etc., for just shy of three decades.
I also recognize that in our democracy, majority opinions cary the day. The US Constitution is a document which is subject to frequent interpretation and infrequent but precedented rewriting. Someone said earlier that just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I like that. I wish more people were considerate enough to take it to heart.
Regardless, I don't think anyone has ever had their mind changed on such an emotional subject by internet posts, and the fact that everyone here has at least been willing to listen without overt nastiness is heartening.
Quote from: Muskrat on September 10 2020 09:29:28 PM MDT
Regardless, I don't think anyone has ever had their mind changed on such an emotional subject by internet posts, and the fact that everyone here has at least been willing to listen without overt nastiness is heartening.
I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks much everyone for making this such a great place to frequent.
Muskrat, I suspect we'd probably enjoy chatting in person given the opportunity. Have a good weekend.
Yes Keiichi, I suspect we probably would enjoy that. You have a good weekend, too.
That's one of the things I really like about this forum, the majority of us are all very civil Minded
Ken
Quote from: Muskrat on September 10 2020 09:29:28 PM MDT
Regardless, I don't think anyone has ever had their mind changed on such an emotional subject by internet posts, and the fact that everyone here has at least been willing to listen without overt nastiness is heartening.
It seems to me that one aspect of the issue of OC vs CC is the purpose of carrying to begin with. (I am leaving out those whose goal is to draw attention to themselves. They're not serious and I've seen no one of that sort posting here.) For the others there are those who wish to OC in order to make a philosophical point and to attempt to normalize OC. I disagree with those but acknowledge it is a legitimate view with a serious goal. But while that is true it appears that doing so interferes with the goal of carrying in order to protect oneself and innocent bystanders when someone appears with evil intent, which is why I carry. Let's imagine you are in a small to medium size store or other location when the bad guy appears. You have an AR slung over your back and stick out rather noticeably. Who do you think will be the initial target? Yeah, that's what I think as well and what good is your gun when you're dead on the floor? Compare that to concealed carry. Who will then be the initial target?
Granted in a large store, Walmart, Kroger, etc, you might be far away from the door when the shooter appears so you're not the initial target but that's a matter of luck. All in all it seems if protection is your goal then CC is the way to go.
Excellent point, Thanks Sneed
https://apnews.com/article/homicide-shootings-police-jacob-blake-trials-0b0bbd2701e282361495bf815755e080
What could go wrong? A seventeen-year-old kid who isn't smart enough to know which way his hat is supposed to face attends a protest armed with an assault rifle...
Two people are dead and everyone who loved them or depended on them or even just knew them are suffering. A third person is injured by gunfire, and anyone who's suffered serious injury knows that the pain and consequences of a serious injury never go away.
Rittenhouse (the shooter) is facing life without parole, and even if that doesn't stick he'll likely spend decades in prison and certainly be dogged by his actions for the rest of his life. Instead of going to his high school prom he'll get repeatedly sodomized in the corner of the exercise yard that the cameras don't record. I'd bet my life that Rittenhouse wishes he'd never even seen a gun, much less owned one.
In six or ten years when the civil suits are finally concluded, Rittenhouse's parents literally won't have two nickels to rub together. No house, no savings, no pension...hell, even their social security will be taken in compensation for what their son did. Their thanksgiving dinner will be dictated by what's available at the local food closet until the day they die.
And for what??? The expression of Second Amendment rights? Ask Rittenhouse and his family how they feel about the expression of 2-A rights today...
Rittenhouse was a stupid kid participating in a stupid act, that for some insane reason wasn't illegal, but should have been. Had it not been legal for that (or any other) jackass to cary a loaded AR-15 in public none of this would have happened. Stupid Stupid Stupid.
Absolutely a huge price to pay, and for what gain, little that I can see either
You're still clutching your pearls over this?
Rittenhouse went to a RIOT and helped thwart an arson that dead pedo smurf was participating in. That is what got him assaulted by dead pedo and it was a good thing he was armed. The mob then set out to end him and he again defended himself.
None of the dead/injured were a loss to society. The only reason they were still alive was because it was illegal to shoot them years ago.
Rittenhouse wasn't there because of some 2A event but he's still alive because of his 2A rights. He shouldn't have been in that position but the RIOTERS and ARSONIST shouldn't have been there either.
FWIW I saw a photo of his parents at some political event with Michelle Malkin and they appear to be holding up well. I bet when all is said and done Kyle does no prison time.
"Assault Rifles!" , "Open Carry of LOADED handguns". Lordy next thing you'll have the vapors because normal "civilians" are carrying hollowpoints.
Quote from: Sneed on September 11 2020 09:22:02 AM MDT
Quote from: Muskrat on September 10 2020 09:29:28 PM MDT
Regardless, I don't think anyone has ever had their mind changed on such an emotional subject by internet posts, and the fact that everyone here has at least been willing to listen without overt nastiness is heartening.
It seems to me that one aspect of the issue of OC vs CC is the purpose of carrying to begin with. (I am leaving out those whose goal is to draw attention to themselves. They're not serious and I've seen no one of that sort posting here.) For the others there are those who wish to OC in order to make a philosophical point and to attempt to normalize OC. I disagree with those but acknowledge it is a legitimate view with a serious goal. But while that is true it appears that doing so interferes with the goal of carrying in order to protect oneself and innocent bystanders when someone appears with evil intent, which is why I carry. Let's imagine you are in a small to medium size store or other location when the bad guy appears. You have an AR slung over your back and stick out rather noticeably. Who do you think will be the initial target? Yeah, that's what I think as well and what good is your gun when you're dead on the floor? Compare that to concealed carry. Who will then be the initial target?
Granted in a large store, Walmart, Kroger, etc, you might be far away from the door when the shooter appears so you're not the initial target but that's a matter of luck. All in all it seems if protection is your goal then CC is the way to go.
Quote from: Kenk on September 11 2020 09:29:36 AM MDT
Excellent point, Thanks Sneed
The first target discussion always and I mean always comes up in OC vs CC conversations and there is no basis in fact for the first target issue. If there was you can bet it would be on every media outlet every time and OC states would be reducing in number instead of increasing as they currently are.
Criminals are opportunists that prefer little to no resistance.
Regardless of your personal feelings about OC, all of us should support gaining some of our taken freedoms back, not disparaging one another. If you don't want to OC then don't. It's really that simple. But don't disparage and try to restrict those of us that do.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Quote from: Muskrat on September 25 2020 06:43:33 PM MDT
https://apnews.com/article/homicide-shootings-police-jacob-blake-trials-0b0bbd2701e282361495bf815755e080
What could go wrong? A seventeen-year-old kid who isn't smart enough to know which way his hat is supposed to face attends a protest armed with an assault rifle...
Two people are dead and everyone who loved them or depended on them or even just knew them are suffering. A third person is injured by gunfire, and anyone who's suffered serious injury knows that the pain and consequences of a serious injury never go away.
Rittenhouse (the shooter) is facing life without parole, and even if that doesn't stick he'll likely spend decades in prison and certainly be dogged by his actions for the rest of his life. Instead of going to his high school prom he'll get repeatedly sodomized in the corner of the exercise yard that the cameras don't record. I'd bet my life that Rittenhouse wishes he'd never even seen a gun, much less owned one.
In six or ten years when the civil suits are finally concluded, Rittenhouse's parents literally won't have two nickels to rub together. No house, no savings, no pension...hell, even their social security will be taken in compensation for what their son did. Their thanksgiving dinner will be dictated by what's available at the local food closet until the day they die.
And for what??? The expression of Second Amendment rights? Ask Rittenhouse and his family how they feel about the expression of 2-A rights today...
Rittenhouse was a stupid kid participating in a stupid act, that for some insane reason wasn't illegal, but should have been. Had it not been legal for that (or any other) jackass to cary a loaded AR-15 in public none of this would have happened. Stupid Stupid Stupid.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you haven't deeply studied the facts of what happened in this case?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Probably the best facts video on the Kyle Rittenhouse situation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSU9ZvnudFE&bpctr=1601160308
In Pennsylvania, we have 2nd Ammendment Rally's outside the State Capitol multiple times a year. Never felt safer. Long guns,open carry.They want in,check em in.It's a message. My right , decided by very intelligent men who seen the big picture long ago. And it's are State Constitution. But President Harris will see to that. {sarc}
There is no one involved in the Rittenhouse situation that is without serious fault. That makes is a great edge case to get terrible law from.
Quote from: sqlbullet on September 30 2020 08:26:24 AM MDT
There is no one involved in the Rittenhouse situation that is without serious fault. That makes is a great edge case to get terrible law from.
I'd say for a 17 year old kid, Rittenhouse handled the situation very well given the circumstances.
I sure don't claim to know all of the facts. It will come out if there is a trail though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd amendment"
Is not allowing open carry an infringement on "bear arms"? I say yes.
Marbury v Madison states "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void." Marbury is the 800 lb gorilla in constitutional law.
LEOs don't like open carry because there are too many Karens out there calling 911. Just be careful. See "deprivation of rights under color of law" 18 U.S. Code §?242 and conspiring to violate rights 18 U.S. Code §?242
Any questions where I stand?
Greg
Yes, just because you can doesn't mean you should, I personally feel like it gives all of us 2A Supporters a black eye.
Quote from: Lyle_Savant on October 01 2020 04:31:40 PM MDT
Yes, just because you can doesn't mean you should, I personally feel like it gives all of us 2A Supporters a black eye.
Why? It's a tool just like any other tool.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
When I was asked about open carry while teaching CCW safety classes I'd point out that it was equally legal for my hairy portly person to stroll around on a beach or main street wearing flip flops, a fishnet t-shirt and Speedo banana hammock. Most ladies in class seemed to think neither was appropriate, but most agreed that there is a time and place. (For a Speedo) ;)
Similar to the legendary Rooftop Koreans concealed carry wasn't necessarily appropriate in the Rittenhouse case. Rittenhouse & Co. were there to allegedly protect property and underestimated the scope of the riots. Just as several rioters underestimated Rittenhouse.
Quote from: Sneed on September 09 2020 09:40:28 AM MDT
Quote from: Muskrat on September 08 2020 06:15:41 PM MDT
Lastly, I would like to complement the people who have been involved in this conversation for their civility. It is admirable and speaks well of this community.
It used to be that such conversations could occur in many online sites. No more, of course. Discussion is just not possible when everyone believes there are those who agree with them on everything and those who are dead wrong. With no contemplation and evaluation it all just becomes yelling at one another. The fact that that is not the case here is both exceptional and rewarding.
I too am grateful that this forum has been completely civil and respectful to each other. This is how we should ALL be to each other no matter where. Unfortunately, it seems that civil discourse in America has been hard to find.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
And unfortunately, will likely become worse
Quote from: Mike D on September 30 2020 08:29:13 PM MDT
Quote from: sqlbullet on September 30 2020 08:26:24 AM MDT
There is no one involved in the Rittenhouse situation that is without serious fault. That makes is a great edge case to get terrible law from.
I'd say for a 17 year old kid, Rittenhouse handled the situation very well given the circumstances.
I sure don't claim to know all of the facts. It will come out if there is a trail though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I too lack all the facts. But I seriously question the decision to travel across state lines to defend the property of strangers.
There were riots much closer to our home than the 23 miles it is from Antioch to Kenosha. My home certainly has the firepower here to have made an impact. But rather than travel to the violence, we loaded up, reviewed our home defense plan and settled in for the night.
Smart guy 😊
Quote from: sqlbullet on October 05 2020 08:19:38 AM MDT
Quote from: Mike D on September 30 2020 08:29:13 PM MDT
Quote from: sqlbullet on September 30 2020 08:26:24 AM MDT
There is no one involved in the Rittenhouse situation that is without serious fault. That makes is a great edge case to get terrible law from.
I'd say for a 17 year old kid, Rittenhouse handled the situation very well given the circumstances.
I sure don't claim to know all of the facts. It will come out if there is a trail though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I too lack all the facts. But I seriously question the decision to travel across state lines to defend the property of strangers.
There were riots much closer to our home than the 23 miles it is from Antioch to Kenosha. My home certainly has the firepower here to have made an impact. But rather than travel to the violence, we loaded up, reviewed our home defense plan and settled in for the night.
He was already I Kenosha. He did not cross state lines to defend anyone. The gun also did not cross state lines.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I didn't say he did cross state lines with a gun.
I said he traveled "across state lines to defend the property of strangers".
He was a resident of Antioch, and was in Kenosha, so at some point he traveled across a state line. I found multiple sources that said he went to Kenosha on the 25th, but do acknowledge they don't say where he traveled to Kenosha from. It may have been from Milwaukee, but it seems likely he went there from his home.
Mr. Rittenhouse said in a news video interview:
Quote"People are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and part of my job is to also help people, If there's somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle, because I need to protect myself, but I also have my med kit."
He admits here he has a rifle, which is illegal for a 17 year old in Wisconsin. Wisconsin only allows possession of a rifle by a minor for hunting purposes and with the consent of a legal guardian. Open carry is legal in Wisconsin, but not for minors.
Mr. Rittenhouse was already in commission of two misdemeanors before the shootings began.
I don't doubt that Rittenhouse very much feared for his life, and reasonably so, when he fired his gun. Unless some extraordinary facts present, I would agree that he should be acquitted of the homicide charges.
But he should not have been armed, and if he didn't feel safe without being armed, he should have left. That was the serious fault in his judgement.
Absolutely agree
I saw a few attorneys with youtube channels say that Rittenhouse wasn't technically committing a crime if he had stayed on the property he was "protecting." The business belonged to a family friend. It is not illegal for a minor to possess a weapon on private property. However, when he took that weapon out into the street to put out the dumpster fire with the fire extinguisher was where the law was actually broken.