Cop Open Carry Stop: You Make the Call

[CLAX1911]

I carried openly for years, until California banned it totally. Your opinion of what is wise or right is most likely different from mine. Choice of how to carry is just that a choice the wisdom of what is better depends on whom you ask. Jerry in post 343 clarified it excellently. I carried openly because of the intimidation factor and it keeping people polite who wouldn't otherwise be. Deterrence in my opinion is no good if no one knows you have a deterrent. But that's just me.

intimidation only works on people who are intimidated. I don't personally feel a gun should be usedto threaten respect out of people, that is definitely a different opinion than yours. I find that notion to be extremely immature. Again another opinion.

I only use my gun to defend my life, or the life of my family. I personally don't need strangers to be threatenedinto being polite to me. And it is exactly that attitude I disagree with and will always vote down open carry.

What happens if somebody isn't polite to you? Even if you have a gun? I have had experience open carrying a gun. It doesn't garner any respect. Some people don't care, some will date you to pull on them, some people will tell you "shoot me coward!" If you have your gun pointed in their face. Marching into a grocery store and intimidating grannies just seems like a good reason to be against open carry.

 

[Henrin]

That isn't how it works. The police have a job to do. These people weren't doing anything wrong that is why they weren't arrested, detained or even bothered.

How can you say they weren't bothered when they were clearly bothered? Some idiot called the cops and like usual the cops came out and bothered people that were doing nothing but sitting there minding their own business. If people weren't so scared of guns then perhaps people could sit around with them and not be bothered by the police.

Why are you fussing about this? There are plenty of times when police actually do violate people's rights. In this case where the citizen was shown the up most respect you still get fussy. What would please you?

People want someone to keep them safe, which is fine, but the police are an organization of threats and violence that cause more problems in these situations than they solve. If the little dimwit that called the cops did what the cops did themselves their concern would have been dealt with all the same and perhaps they could have learned something about guns.

 

[Jerry]

Concealing it until the moment you need it out of concealment is tactically advantageous.

In ways, sure, and disadvantageous in other ways.

I think itis unwise based on facts. One of those facts is that people can see it and know it's there.

Please link to those facts.

Based on the info you provided it wouldn't make a difference, that is a fact not an opinion. You failing to give the totality of the circumstances not withstanding.

No it's an opinion since you didn't link to supporting data for your claim.

So you need data proving people have eyes that see and hands that can grab?

A source that those eyes even notice and/or those hands grab at any frequency, yes.

Don't need a source.

You always need a source. This is a debate site. Everything you say is wrong until you prove otherwise. That's debate. Nothing is believed at face value. You have to prove it as if you're in court. That is the kind of discussion people come to a website like this for.

 

[CLAX1911]

How can you say they weren't bothered when they were clearly bothered? Some idiot called the cops and like usual the cops came out and bothered people that were doing nothing but sitting there minding their own business. If people weren't so scared of guns then perhaps people could sit around with them and not be bothered by the police.

I didn't see any bothering.

People want someone to keep them safe, which is fine, but the police are an organization of threats and violence that cause more problems in these situations than they solve. If the little dimwit that called the cops did what the cops did themselves their concern would have been dealt with all the same and perhaps they could have learned something about guns.

Threats of violence? What in the hell are you talking about? When do they threaten people?

The "little dimwit" doesn't have to do what you want them to do. Some people don't like guns, some people feel threatened by a guy standing around holding one. It isn't your right to tell them how to feel. They called the police, because the law enforcement duty is to protect and serve the peace they have to investigate. They don't have answers they have to go obtain them. In this case they didn't harm anything.

What is your objection?

 

[CLAX1911]

In ways, sure, and disadvantageous in other ways.

You have failed to point those out.

Please link to those facts.

Reattend preschool, you will obtain those facts.

No it's an opinion since you didn't link to supporting data for your claim.

No it's a fact, I don't need links to prove it.

A source that those eyes even notice and/or those hands grab at any frequency, yes.

Why would I link a source. to something I never claimed. I stated nothing about frequency. I said eyes can see, hands can grab. It's what those organs and appendages are for.

You always need a source. This is a debate site.

No I don't. I don't need a source to prove eyes can see.

Everything you say is wrong until you prove otherwise.

So me saying people with eyes can see is wrong until I post some data that proves that?

That's debate. Nothing is believed at face value.

bull****. Lots of things are believed at face value. Because it is illogical to think that people with eyes can't see until it is proven. Do I also need to prove and provide links that I need oxygen to breath?

This is an extreme strain you are going through to avoid admitting your argument failed.

You have to prove it as if you're in court. That is the kind of discussion people come to a website like this for.

If I was in court I wouldn't have to prove my anatomy worked on a scientific level. No, you are demanding a source proving that eyes see because your argument failed.

 

[Jerry]

You have failed to point those out.


Reattend preschool, you will obtain those facts.


No it's a fact, I don't need links to prove it.


Why would I link a source. to something I never claimed. I stated nothing about frequency. I said eyes can see, hands can grab. It's what those organs and appendages are for.


No I don't. I don't need a source to prove eyes can see.

So me saying people with eyes can see is wrong until I post some data that proves that?

bull****. Lots of things are believed at face value. Because it is illogical to think that people with eyes can't see until it is proven. Do I also need to prove and provide links that I need oxygen to breath?

This is an extreme strain you are going through to avoid admitting your argument failed.

If I was in court I wouldn't have to prove my anatomy worked on a scientific level. No, you are demanding a source proving that eyes see because your argument failed.

No link = no fact. You like to believe people notice, but they usualy don't. You like to believe a thug can disarm someone without getting shot in the process, just ask Treyvon Martin about that. You have nothing but opinion, and so your entire contribution in this thread is summeraly dismissed as such. You don't know what you're talking about. Those of us who actually own firearms and OC do. You would be wise to learn a few things before opening your mouth, kid.

 

[CLAX1911]

No link = no fact. You like to believe people notice, but they usualy don't.

So there is no reason to open carry and you contradicted yourself.

You like to believe a thug can disarm someone without getting shot in the process, just ask Treyvon Martin about that.

It's reasonable to believe that. And since Martin failed every body will failure every time 100% of the time? And Martin is really irrelevant because he didn't try to pull Zimmerman's gun out of his holster. Another swing and another miss by you, keep grasping at straws.

You have nothing but opinion, and so your entire contribution in this thread is summeraly dismissed as such.

No I have facts, eyes can see hands can grab. You can dismiss things but that doesn't mean they are dismissed.

You don't know what you're talking about.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Those of us who actually own firearms and OC do.

Yes we do.

You would be wise to learn a few things before opening your mouth, kid.

It's a shame you keep giving me advice you need to heed. For me too learn something from you, you would need to possess more knowledge and experience on the subject than I do. That and toning down your arrogance and indignation.

 

[Jerry]

So there is no reason to open carry and you contradicted yourself.

It's reasonable to believe that. And since Martin failed every body will failure every time 100% of the time? And Martin is really irrelevant because he didn't try to pull Zimmerman's gun out of his holster. Another swing and another miss by you, keep grasping at straws.

No I have facts, eyes can see hands can grab. You can dismiss things but that doesn't mean they are dismissed.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Yes we do.

It's a shame you keep giving me advice you need to heed. For me too learn something from you, you would need to possess more knowledge and experience on the subject than I do. That and toning down your arrogance and indignation.

If you had facts you would link to them. You have nothing. You're just a mall-ninja, utterly ignorant on the whole topic of firearms. You should shut up and learn from those of use who are in the military, law enforcement, and own and carry arms. You do not. You have no real-life experience regarding firearms, you don't even have academic information. You're just a kid behind a keyboard and that much is apparent from your postings. Let the adults talk, it's past your bed time.

 

[PirateMk1]

intimidation only works on people who are intimidated. I don't personally feel a gun should be usedto threaten respect out of people, that is definitely a different opinion than yours. I find that notion to be extremely immature. Again another opinion.

I only use my gun to defend my life, or the life of my family. I personally don't need strangers to be threatenedinto being polite to me. And it is exactly that attitude I disagree with and will always vote down open carry.

What happens if somebody isn't polite to you? Even if you have a gun? I have had experience open carrying a gun. It doesn't garner any respect. Some people don't care, some will date you to pull on them, some people will tell you "shoot me coward!" If you have your gun pointed in their face. Marching into a grocery store and intimidating grannies just seems like a good reason to be against open carry.

I don't pull a weapon of any kind unless its to draw blood. There are no threats or warnings with the lone exception of if one sees I am carrying openly. If they are not smart enough to get the hint, too bad. I don't play games. The only time my I will draw a weapon is if I feel someone or myself is in immediate physical harm and my drawing and using my weapon will prevent or mitigate the harm. Otherwise its pointless and is consider brandishing. An armed society is almost always a polite society. People tend to be much more polite to those they think might harm them if they are not. I didn't go around announcing I had a weapon I just wore it, like someone would were their belt or shoes. Most people assumed I was law enforcement. The intimidation factor is the presence of a weapon. That's it and all. Not all people are intimidated by them. In fact I would say most are not. But then again most people aren't looking for trouble either. Trouble seekers tend to go for easy meat. I want to look like I am not the kind of trouble someone seeking it wants to deal with. Simple. The only respect I am after is to be left alone. If I am respected that way people aren't intimidated or fear me. You seem to be under the impression I want to go around brandishing my pistol like some drunken fool. I want to wear it and have it with me with out having to get permission or breaking some inane law.

 

[CLAX1911]

If you had facts you would link to them. You have nothing.

I have facts I started them you denied them because your argument failed.

You're just a mall-ninja, utterly ignorant on the whole topic of firearms.

Coming from you? :lamo

You should shut up and learn from those of use who are in the military, law enforcement, and own and carry arms.

I did learn from those people, that is how I know not to listen to clowns on the internet.

You do not.

Yes I do.

You're just a kid behind a keyboard and that much is apparent from your postings.

You are the one calling me a kid because your argument failed

Let the adults talk, it's past your bed time.

If you had a clue I would.

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't pull a weapon of any kind unless its to draw blood. There are no threats or warnings with the lone exception of if one sees I am carrying openly. If they are not smart enough to get the hint, too bad. I don't play games. The only time my I will draw a weapon is if I feel someone or myself is in immediate physical harm and my drawing and using my weapon will prevent or mitigate the harm. Otherwise its pointless and is consider brandishing. An armed society is almost always a polite society. People tend to be much more polite to those they think might harm them if they are not. I didn't go around announcing I had a weapon I just wore it, like someone would were their belt or shoes. Most people assumed I was law enforcement. The intimidation factor is the presence of a weapon. That's it and all. Not all people are intimidated by them. In fact I would say most are not. But then again most people aren't looking for trouble either. Trouble seekers tend to go for easy meat. I want to look like I am not the kind of trouble someone seeking it wants to deal with. Simple. The only respect I am after is to be left alone. If I am respected that way people aren't intimidated or fear me. You seem to be under the impression I want to go around brandishing my pistol like some drunken fool. I want to wear it and have it with me with out having to get permission or breaking some inane law.

I am sorry the state has theright torequire you to have a license.

 

[Henrin]

I am sorry the state has theright torequire you to have a license.

Really? Where is that written?

 

[CLAX1911]

Really? Where is that written?

tenth amendment.

 

[Crimefree]

tenth amendment.

Which does not apply to the 2nd. "shall not be infringed" means what? Why are those words there and why is this that ONLY amendment with those words?

 

[PirateMk1]

I am sorry the state has theright torequire you to have a license.

They claim it. I go along with it for now.

 

[CLAX1911]

Which does not apply to the 2nd. "shall not be infringed" means what? Why are those words there and why is this that ONLY amendment with those words?

The state saying you need a license doesn't infringe.

 

[CLAX1911]

They claim it. I go along with it for now.

Than you agree.

 

[Crimefree]

The state saying you need a license doesn't infringe.

Huh!!! Even if that licence was free the fact I have to go and get it infringes the right.

 

[CLAX1911]

Huh!!! Even if that licence was free the fact I have to go and get it infringes the right.

How so?

 

[Crimefree]

How so?

It infringes the right. Look up the word infringe. It is an impediment and obstruction. Keep and bear is not possible if no licence is obtained. Sheez....

 

[CLAX1911]

It infringes the right. Look up the word infringe. It is an impediment and obstruction. Keep and bear is not possible if no licence is obtained. Sheez....

sure it is.
in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
1.
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

So again how does requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon infringe. You act like it's obvious, pretend that it isn't and please explain. I don't understand how it infringes.

 

[Crimefree]

sure it is.
in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
1.
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

So again how does requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon infringe. You act like it's obvious, pretend that it isn't and please explain. I don't understand how it infringes.

Asked and answered. Not my problem if you do not like the answer. Do try reading further on the meaning and not conveniently leaving stuff out. Are you happy now and are assured the writers of the constitution knew exactly what it meant?

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"such widespread surveillance could infringe personal liberties"
synonyms: undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise;
limit, curb, check, place a limit on, encroach on, interfere with, disturb, disrupt
"such widespread surveillance could infringe personal liberties"
trespass on, encroach on, impinge on, intrude on, enter, invade;
barge in on, burst in on;
archaic, entrench on
"he shall be restrained from ever infringing your territory"
antonyms: preserve, strengthen

 

[PirateMk1]

Than you agree.

11111111 No.

 

[CLAX1911]

Asked and answered. Not my problem if you do not like the answer. Do try reading further on the meaning and not conveniently leaving stuff out. Are you happy now and are assured the writers of the constitution knew exactly what it meant?

You didn't answer you acted as though it was obvious. I am sorry, I don't see how it infringes. If you are so sure it does how come you can't just explain? There is no need to be defensive. It really is your problem, you haven't convinced me that it is infringement, you failed to explain.

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"such widespread surveillance could infringe personal liberties"
synonyms: undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise;
limit, curb, check, place a limit on, encroach on, interfere with, disturb, disrupt
"such widespread surveillance could infringe personal liberties"
trespass on, encroach on, impinge on, intrude on, enter, invade;
barge in on, burst in on;
archaic, entrench on
"he shall be restrained from ever infringing your territory"
antonyms: preserve, strengthen

This still doesn't explain how requiring a license infringes.

 

[CLAX1911]

11111111 No.

You just said you accepted it.