I OPEN Carry. Ask me any questions.

[cpgrad08]

Perhaps Lakewood, Wa. is some kind of hotbed for violent gang activity???


I'm not saying you don't have the right to open carry. I'm just asking why you feel the need.

Told you that already.

 

[cpgrad08]

Perhaps you carry lots of cash?

Or maybe you dress in a very flashy style? Expensive watches and chains and such?

Do you present yourself as a target when you go out? Flashing wealth around sort of willy-nilly?

T-shirt and Jeans.

 

[Dragonfly]

Told you that already.

No, you didn't.

 

[Rainman05]

how does one abuse a right?

if i am allowed by someone to enter the property with a fireman,..that owner is giving me the privilege of being on this property with it......its not a right.

if a person does not act responsible in exercising a right, ....then throw the book at the person.....not the "people at large"

how have we gotten to this place?......where people WANT to determine how other people......exercise their rights?

You abuse it by mocking that right. That's how. In the way I described above. Do you need me to describe it a 3rd time? I can just copy paste it.

Read above and here, I'll give you more examples. Maybe you will understand.

You have the right to vote. You can abuse this right by going to vote and voting for a candidate whose running platform is that he'll ban all other food but chicken. Now that's an extreme example, but you can do it. Someone can run on that platform and you can vote for him. But you're abusing your right. instead of going in informed and voting for a proper candidate, you can mock your right to vote and vote for a clown. But that's an extreme example. Here's a common one. You can go in and vote on partisan basis. You're a partisan of X party and you go and vote for that party no matter what. That's another form of abuse. And don't be shocked if later down the line you realize, or others realize, that the system is screwed due to people like you who piss over your electoral duties.

Understand how one can abuse a right? You want more examples. I really don't know how I can make it clearer. I honestly can't.

You cannot see that I am your best friend. I don't want gun rights to be abolished. But it will get to that point as more and more people look at the people who open carry and brag about it, like the OP, and become disgusted with that behavior and will call for an end to it. And it will be ended. Because the US Constitution isn't written by God or jesus's hand or whatever, and the founding fathers are just people, and they're dead, and the people today are alive, and they are going to be tired with living in fear when seeing some "gun nut" with a gun on his back or in his holster, proudly carrying it around like it's a status symbol. And you will only have to blame yourselves for it because those people won't, and rightfully so, just stop at some arbitrary point. They'll go all the way and they'd be correct to do so. that's the blowback. Don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[Master PO]

You are absolutely correct, I don't get to determine anybody's rights (and I shouldn't be able to). But this is where our philosophies clash and to be honest this goes a bit too far off topic. I don't believe that rights are inherently endowed to us, instead they are secured by a centralized authority (i.e. government). And because of this, rights should be determined by the collective. We should never stop striving to evolve/reform/improve what rights we have, whether that is the removal of rights (e.g. certain firearm rights, right to own slaves) or addition of them (e.g. right to internet access - sorry for the trivial example).

Again and I just want to reiterate, I don't support the removal of all gun rights. Firearms on your property, fine. Firearms out in the open in public spaces around me or my family, that's an issue.

rights are endowed......

they are secured by government........which is why government is instituted....if rights did not need to be secure, no government would be necessary.---"if men were angels no government would be necessary"--James Madison

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

you just said that rights should not be determined [I don't get to determine anybody's rights]..now your saying they are collective..........in other words majority rule on rights?

so it the majority want to grant right to themselves, and take rights from the minority...institute slavery, create Jim crow laws...or just kill people...........which history shows they have done this........this is what you think we should do?

you need to read about Socrates, and how how died, at the hands of the people.


when rights of the people are placed in the hands of the people...there is danger.

 

[Master PO]

You abuse it by mocking that right. That's how. In the way I described above. Do you need me to describe it a 3rd time? I can just copy paste it.

Read above and here, I'll give you more examples. Maybe you will understand.

You have the right to vote. You can abuse this right by going to vote and voting for a candidate whose running platform is that he'll ban all other food but chicken. Now that's an extreme example, but you can do it. Someone can run on that platform and you can vote for him. But you're abusing your right. instead of going in informed and voting for a proper candidate, you can mock your right to vote and vote for a clown. But that's an extreme example. Here's a common one. You can go in and vote on partisan basis. You're a partisan of X party and you go and vote for that party no matter what. That's another form of abuse. And don't be shocked if later down the line you realize, or others realize, that the system is screwed due to people like you who piss over your electoral duties.

Understand how one can abuse a right? You want more examples. I really don't know how I can make it clearer. I honestly can't.

You cannot see that I am your best friend. I don't want gun rights to be abolished. But it will get to that point as more and more people look at the people who open carry and brag about it, like the OP, and become disgusted with that behavior and will call for an end to it. And it will be ended. Because the US Constitution isn't written by God or jesus's hand or whatever, and the founding fathers are just people, and they're dead, and the people today are alive, and they are going to be tired with living in fear when seeing some "gun nut" with a gun on his back or in his holster, proudly carrying it around like it's a status symbol. And you will only have to blame yourselves for it because those people won't, and rightfully so, just stop at some arbitrary point. They'll go all the way and they'd be correct to do so. that's the blowback. Don't say I didn't warn you.

sorry no..i don't see it...

 

[SMTA]

Congratulations.

Here's my question.
How does it feel to be no better than a street thug who flashes his piece out to impress his friends and those around him?

Also, how does it feel to know that you're basically violating every single thing that the FBI teaches about gun safety and gun security, like, always make sure it's safely stored and especially, and this part is crucial, don't brandish your weapon?

Carrying is not flashing nor is it brandishing.

Time to calm down.

 

[Master PO]

Letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788

My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided that it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favored it because I suppose it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice.

I have not viewed it in an important light —

1. because I conceive that in a certain degree ... the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted.

2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are ever likely to be by an assumed power. One of the objections in New England was that the Constitution by prohibiting religious tests, opened a door for Jews Turks & infidels.

3. because the limited powers of the federal Government and the jealousy of the subordinate Governments, afford a security which has not existed in the case of the State Governments, and exists in no other.

4. because experience proves the inefficiency of a bill of rights on those occasions when its controul is most needed. Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of h rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current. ... Wherever the real power in a government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents. This is a truth of great importance, but not yet sufficiently attended to. ... Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful & interested party than by a powerful and interested prince. ... The difference so far as it relates to the point in question — the efficacy of a bill of rights in controuling abuses of power — lies in this: that in a monarchy the latent force of the nation is superior to that of the Sovereign, and a solemn charter of popular rights must have a great effect, as a standard for trying the validity of public acts, and a signal for rousing & uniting the superior force of the community; whereas in a popular Government, the political and physical power may be considered as vested in the same hands, that is in a majority of the people, and, consequently the tyrannical will of the Sovereign is not [to] be controuled by the dread of an appeal to any other force within the community.

What use then it may be asked can a bill of rights serve in popular Governments? I answer the two following ...

1. The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion.

2. Altho it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter source; and on such, a bill of rights will be good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community. Perhaps too there may be a certain degree of danger, that a succession of artful and ambitious rulers may by gradual & well times advances, finally erect an independent Government on the subversion of liberty. Should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard agst it, especially when the precaution can do no injury. At the same time I must own that I see no tendency in our Governments to danger on that side.

It has been remarked that there is a tendency in all Governments to an augmentation of power at the expense of liberty. But the remark as usually understood does not appear to me to be well founded. Power when it has attained a certain degree of energy and independence goes on generally to further degrees. But when below that degree, the direct tendency is to further degrees of relaxation, until the abuses of liberty beget a sudden transition to an undue degree of power. With this explanation the remark may be true; and ... is ... applicable to the Governments in America. It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government have too much or too little power, and that the line which defines these extremes should be so inaccurately defined by experience.

Supposing a bill of rights to be proper ... I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public, and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases they will lose even their ordinary efficacy. Should a Rebellion or insurrection alarm the people as well as the Government, and a suspension of the Hab. Corp. be dictated by the alarm, no written prohibitions on earth would prevent the measure. ... The best security agst these evils is to remove the pretext for them.

 

[Nilly]

rights are endowed......

they are secured by government........which is why government is instituted....if rights did not need to be secure, no government would be necessary.---"if men were angels no government would be necessary"--James Madison

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

you just said that rights should not be determined [I don't get to determine anybody's rights]..now your saying they are collective..........in other words majority rule on rights?

so it the majority want to grant right to themselves, and take rights from the minority...institute slavery, create Jim crow laws...or just kill people...........which history shows they have done this........this is what you think we should do?

you need to read about Socrates, and how how died, at the hands of the people.


when rights of the people are placed in the hands of the people...there is danger.

Putting rights in the hands of the people is what led to the constitution in the first place. I have more to say on this but I don't think it's pertinent to the thread so I'm not going to discuss it further here.

 

[Master PO]

Putting rights in the hands of the people is what led to the constitution in the first place. I have more to say on this but I don't think it's pertinent to the thread so I'm not going to discuss it further here.

wrong ...rights are not in the hands of the people....the Constitution does not grant or give any rights......it only recognizes rights which pre-exist the constitution.

 

[LagerHead]

How do you feel about infringing other peoples ability to feel safe around you?

You don't have a right to feel safe around me. And that argument is beyond stupid. I don't feel safe around people that won't educate themselves at least at the basic level before engaging in debate about it. So, how do you feel about infringing on my rights? :roll:

 

[LagerHead]

1. True.
3. Sure, but you're assuming that just because you're known to have a gun that makes you a "hard" target. In fact, you're the easiest one there is. I'd be more scared of going into a house where I didn't know if the owner had a gun or not. Or what guns. With you, I already know, and you're easy.

Internet Ninja!!!

 

[ARealConservative]

no questions, just a huge THANK YOU for demonstrating you have this right every day

 

[Paschendale]

If you saw me at a grocery story trying to figure out which can of beans is a better value while I'm OCing and your first thought is a blood thirsty manic you might want to get yourself checked out.

It doesn't have to anyone's first thought. But you are requiring me to risk my life in trusting that you're not. You clearly aren't willing to take that risk. That's why you're carrying a weapon. So why do you feel that you can require me to do so?

If a person doesn't feel safe around me, then they can move away from me. No one is forcing them to be near or around me.

So why do you feel that you can force people, with a threat of violence (which is there whether you directly intend it or not), to leave places that you are in?

Do you not think that crime can happen anywhere at anytime?

Sure it can. But it seldom does. I worry about things that are likely. If you are afraid of violent crime but not afraid to drive a car, then you do not understand probability.

Seriously, do you not realize the fear that you're putting into others? Do you not realize that, to them, you are the exact thing that you are afraid of? You are requiring people, at the exact moment they see you, to decide in a split second if they trust you with their lives. Do you trust all of them? Clearly not. You're making sure you have the ability to kill them. Why do you feel that you can or should force that burden onto others?

 

[Nilly]

You don't have a right to feel safe around me. And that argument is beyond stupid. I don't feel safe around people that won't educate themselves at least at the basic level before engaging in debate about it. So, how do you feel about infringing on my rights? :roll:

I never said there was a right to it, but the act of open carry makes people around feel unsafe for the sake of one person's power trip.

I'll play along though, my 'inability to educate myself' carries very little actual physical threat to your own person or your family. A face tattoo, as someone else mentioned, does not automatically endow somebody with the ability to threaten your life. A gun on the other hand, does carry that threat, with little justification beyond 'it's my right to carry it'. By nature, humans assess threats and these threats invoke a fight or flight response, OC turns public spaces into threatening spaces. I don't want public spaces to be threatening, the more we can reduce threats in public spaces the better off we are. That's why in plenty of states you can't carry machete's, or be too intoxicated in public.

It's like a penis, play with it as much as you want on your own property, just put it away when you go outside.

 

[LagerHead]

I never said there was a right to it, but the act of open carry makes people around feel unsafe for the sake of one person's power trip.

I'll play along though, my 'inability to educate myself' carries very little actual physical threat to your own person or your family. A face tattoo, as someone else mentioned, does not automatically endow somebody with the ability to threaten your life. A gun on the other hand, does carry that threat, with little justification beyond 'it's my right to carry it'. By nature, humans assess threats and these threats invoke a fight or flight response, OC turns public spaces into threatening spaces. I don't want public spaces to be threatening, the more we can reduce threats in public spaces the better off we are. That's why in plenty of states you can't carry machete's, or be too intoxicated in public.

It's like a penis, play with it as much as you want on your own property, just put it away when you go outside.

Well then I guess you're afraid of cops too. I guess we should get rid of them. After all, they're more likely to commit a crime than the average carry permit holder. Glad we at least see eye to eye on that.

 

[Master PO]

So why do you feel that you can force people, with a threat of violence (which is there whether you directly intend it or not), to leave places that you are in?

this is a new angle the left is using.

explain how force is applied.....

i can bear a firearm on my own property.

i can bear a firearm thru the privilege on others property if they allow it, and i can bear a firearms in the public square......where are any of those are you compelled to stay if you feel threaten?

 

[Dragonfly]

Told you that already.

What you said was:

Will I carry 95% time when I leave the home. ( the only times I don't is when I'm at work or at school). I OC because I carry bulky firearm that makes a little harder to CC then you would never want. OC feels more comfortable to me. Also their is a deterrant factor to it if someone was going to do me or someone near by me wrong. Most ( not all) criminals are looking for a easy target.

So you said you open carry because it's more comfortable than concealed carry. Mainly because you carry a larger weapon.

You also said that in your mind it acts as a deterrent, because without a gun, you appear to prospective thieves to be an easy target.

No, you didn't.

I then asked you a list of questions as to why you feel that without a gun you'd be a good potential target for thieves.

Being a young man with US Marine Corp training and experience I'd assume you're not a typical target for many reasons.

Your responses to my questions confirms you're not the "classic" target for thieves.


So what I keep coming back to is why you feel you'd be a target?
Why are you afraid other people want to hurt/harm or rob you?

I'm 51 years old. I live 30 miles south of Philadelphia, Pa and Camden NJ is just across the river from there.
Camden and Philly are fairly well known for a high rate of crime and murder. I'm guessing more so than Lakewood Wa, but that's just a guess.
I spent two years in the mid-80's living directly in a very "working class" area of Baltimore MD. Within the actual city limits mind you.
I'm slightly smaller than average height-wise (5'7"), and 150 pounds.
I do not have combat training or military training/experience.

I have NEVER felt that I need to carry a gun to be "safe" from crime, or just to be able to make it through the day.

You can do what you want, but when you say "ask me any questions" that's what you get.

Why do you think you represent a "target" if you don't have a big-ass gun hanging out for everyone to see?

And could the same purpose be served if the gun was a fake? I mean....who would know?

 

[cpgrad08]

What you said was:



So you said you open carry because it's more comfortable than concealed carry. Mainly because you carry a larger weapon.

You also said that in your mind it acts as a deterrent, because without a gun, you appear to prospective thieves to be an easy target.



I then asked you a list of questions as to why you feel that without a gun you'd be a good potential target for thieves.

Being a young man with US Marine Corp training and experience I'd assume you're not a typical target for many reasons.

Your responses to my questions confirms you're not the "classic" target for thieves.


So what I keep coming back to is why you feel you'd be a target?
Why are you afraid other people want to hurt/harm or rob you?

I'm 51 years old. I live 30 miles south of Philadelphia, Pa and Camden NJ is just across the river from there.
Camden and Philly are fairly well known for a high rate of crime and murder. I'm guessing more so than Lakewood Wa, but that's just a guess.
I spent two years in the mid-80's living directly in a very "working class" area of Baltimore MD. Within the actual city limits mind you.
I'm slightly smaller than average height-wise (5'7"), and 150 pounds.
I do not have combat training or military training/experience.

I have NEVER felt that I need to carry a gun to be "safe" from crime, or just to be able to make it through the day.

You can do what you want, but when you say "ask me any questions" that's what you get.

Why do you think you represent a "target" if you don't have a big-ass gun hanging out for everyone to see?

And could the same purpose be served if the gun was a fake? I mean....who would know?

Like I said I don't live in fear. It is called being prepared. I rather have it and not need it. Than Need it and not have it.

I have no problems if you not feeling a need to carry a gun. It is your choice.

 

[cpgrad08]

It doesn't have to anyone's first thought. But you are requiring me to risk my life in trusting that you're not. You clearly aren't willing to take that risk. That's why you're carrying a weapon. So why do you feel that you can require me to do so?



So why do you feel that you can force people, with a threat of violence (which is there whether you directly intend it or not), to leave places that you are in?



Sure it can. But it seldom does. I worry about things that are likely. If you are afraid of violent crime but not afraid to drive a car, then you do not understand probability.

Seriously, do you not realize the fear that you're putting into others? Do you not realize that, to them, you are the exact thing that you are afraid of? You are requiring people, at the exact moment they see you, to decide in a split second if they trust you with their lives. Do you trust all of them? Clearly not. You're making sure you have the ability to kill them. Why do you feel that you can or should force that burden onto others?

I force no one to do anything.

 

[cpgrad08]

this is a new angle the left is using.

explain how force is applied.....

i can bear a firearm on my own property.

i can bear a firearm thru the privilege on others property if they allow it, and i can bear a firearms in the public square......where are any of those are you compelled to stay if you feel threaten?

Don't you know the safety of the people is more important then the individual's rights.

 

[Master PO]

Don't you know the safety of the people is more important then the individual's rights.

they are asserting the have a emotional right to feel safe......where someone believes they have such a right. i don't know.

 

[cpgrad08]

they are asserting the have a emotional right to feel safe......where someone believes they have such a right. i don't know.

their will always be people that believe their wants overrides another s rights.

 

[Paschendale]

I force no one to do anything.

So no, you don't realize. This is why you are a detriment to the causes you champion. This is why you are, as others in this thread have tried to tell you, abusing you rights. This is why you generate the backlash that you do.

 

[SMTA]

So no, you don't realize. This is why you are a detriment to the causes you champion. This is why you are, as others in this thread have tried to tell you, abusing you rights. This is why you generate the backlash that you do.

Legally exercising rights does not constitute abuse.

Any moron who does not understand COTUS rights can move elsewhere anytime they choose.

Sadly, though, most stay and exercise their 1A rights by crying and whining about 2A rights.

It is comical.