Common OC/CC threadjack

[dburkhead]

What I am saying is there is a time and place for everything and if I have to explain to people where is the proper place to OC I am beating a dead horse. Like I have said many times just because you can doesn't mean you should. Because you are in a smoking allowed restaurant that does not give you the right to blow smoke in the face of the person at the table next to you.

The thing is you are not explaining anything. You are declaring ex cathedra. Sorry, but just because you think it so doesn't make it so.

And what you are talking about isn't the equivalent of blowing smoke in someone's face. It's the equivalent of not smoking, even though it's allowed, because the folk at the next table over might be offended by someone smoking.

 

[Michiana]

You're right. I shouldn't to get up, go to the next table and blow smoke in their face. But I can go about my business, eat my meal, and have a smoke afterwards. Now I don't even smoke but this example is perfect.

Same as I can go to walmart, do my shopping with my family, and go about my business with a firearm on my hip. I'm not bothering anyone. I'm not tapping people on the shoulder and pointing to my hip. As a matter of fact the most hassle I EVER got was at Cabela's. A store that sells guns. Not walmart or anywhere else.

Heck 20 of us didn't get hassled at IHOP or Northwoods while OC'ing.

I have been eating in restaurants sitting in the non smoking section only a few feet away from people in the smoking section and clouds of smoke come drifting over to our table. Is it the fault of the restaurant for having improper ventilations; YES. Should these smokers notice that their smoke is annoying people in the non smoking section YES. They are within their rights to smoke where they are seated but lets have some respect for others around you. I used to smoke until I had my heart attack so I am probably more sensitive to the subject than most non smokers.

I have over one hundred customers I do transfers for, quite a few are LEO's and I have yet to see an OC with the exception of one State Trooper who was in uniform. I do not believe these people are the exception. I have even been told by several people that they left their gun in the car out of respect for my wife and I and my home. I base my opinion on how I want to be treated by others and what I observe and hear from other gun owners. To each their own but personally I have never been for OC in populated areas.

 

[dburkhead]

It is in the news about the people walking around with AR-15's hanging on them close to where the president is speaking. Because it is their right to do so do you honestly believe this in the long run will help the gun lobby that is trying to get more freedom to carry? It just fuel's the fire for the anti gun lobby to put more restrictions on where guns can be carried. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over time.

Do you honestly think that the anti-gun lobby isn't already doing all in its power to further gun restrictions? The "fuel to the fire" argument is coals to Newcastle.

If we have to hide our guns because somebody may be offended, then we. have. already. lost.

I'll ask again: does history ever record a case of a right being preserved by hiding it? Ever?

 

[dburkhead]

Lets be real, what they say in public and what they do behind closed doors are two different things. Remember 95% of the people will be getting tax cuts? This president is a very sensitive subject when it comes to protctions for obviously reasons so I anticipate an attempt to make sure no one can have a gun within X distance of a president. I might be wrong but time will tell.

If they pass such a law, then they pass such a law. And the vote for it and what is done about it will be public record and yet another bit of evidence that folk who actually believe in Liberty can see when it comes time for the next election.

If we act like their is already such a law without them having to actually pass one, they get all the benefit of having "passed" it without having to take responsibility. We give them all the advantages and save them from the consequences. Looks like the worst of both sides to me.

 

[Michiana]

Do you honestly think that the anti-gun lobby isn't already doing all in its power to further gun restrictions? The "fuel to the fire" argument is coals to Newcastle.

If we have to hide our guns because somebody may be offended, then we. have. already. lost.

I'll ask again: does history ever record a case of a right being preserved by hiding it? Ever?

It has nothing to do with your rights and everything to do with protecting the president of the US, whether you and I like him or not. Your rights stop at the line the Secret Service decides in prudent for protecting the president of the United States. If you believe otherwise you are a fool.

 

[dburkhead]

It has nothing to do with your rights and everything to do with protecting the president of the US, whether you and I like him or not. Your rights stop at the line the Secret Service decides in prudent for protecting the president of the United States. If you believe otherwise you are a fool.

Since you are not talking about just carrying guns outside (note that key word outside) events at which the President is in attendance, but about OC in general, I'll ask again: does history ever record a case of a right being preserved by hiding it? Ever?

 

[Ramen]

You have an option of carrying a gun for your protection without makings others uncomfortable; their only option is to leave the store if your gun makes them uncomfortable. You can have your cake and eat it too, they can't.

The difference here is that defending yourself is a right. You can't tell someone to stop defending themselves because you don't like it. They have rights too - the right to leave, to not shop someplace that allows guns, and to not enter places where guns are present.

It is my responsibility to make myself more comfortable, not the other persons. If I don't like smoke in a tavern or restaurant I go someplace else. If I don't like the way someone is driving behind me, I let them pass. If I don't like the way someone is handling a firearm I leave. It is my responsibility to do that.

It is YOUR responsibility to take care of yourself. That includes feeling comfortable in your surroundings. You don't have a right to force other people to make you comfortable. How can something that forces others to serve you be a right?

 

[Michiana]

Exactly

The thing is you are not explaining anything. You are declaring ex cathedra. Sorry, but just because you think it so doesn't make it so.

And what you are talking about isn't the equivalent of blowing smoke in someone's face. It's the equivalent of not smoking, even though it's allowed, because the folk at the next table over might be offended by someone smoking.

Now you're getting the drift, no pun intended. It is called showing consideration for others around you.

 

[dburkhead]

Now you're getting the drift, no pun intended. It is called showing consideration for others around you.

I understood your position from the first. I just disagreed with it. Where your argument fails is that it's one-sided. Consideration has to work both ways.

So lets go with your smoke crossing from the smoking to the non-smoking side analogy.

Per your "consideration" argument, the folk smoking at the border need to go over farther away. But then that leaves the booth/table at the border empty. As sure as taxes it's going to be filled and since, per your "consideration" argument, the people filling it can't be "smokers" you'll end up with the same situation you started with the "non-smokers" being offended by smoke. So, per your "consideration" argument, the smokers have to move over yet again. And the cycle repeats.

That's actually a pretty good description about what's been happening with "gun rights" since at least 1934. Personally, I think we've moved enough and it's time and past time for the people who have been "offended" to start showing some "consideration" for folk who own and carry guns.

 

[Michiana]

Since you are not talking about just carrying guns outside (note that key word outside) events at which the President is in attendance, but about OC in general, I'll ask again: does history ever record a case of a right being preserved by hiding it? Ever?

The role of the Secret Service is to protect the president and designated others in government. They have an obligation to make sure the president is not put in danger. If you or I are walking down the sidewalk a few blocks from where the president is speaking and we have a hangun conceiled on our person who is to know unless you go through a metal detector. If you are in the same place with an asault rifle slung over your back you are preceive to be a kook and will be treated as such. “Normal people” do not walk along a city street with a rifle on their back.

Perception is everything, even going to a university to picket with a sign that has school spelled wrong. That made that protestor look like a dummy and who wants to be around a dummy with a gun? Unfortunately the gun owner is not like Acorn and get away with everything they do; not right but reality. We have to put our best face on everything we do to further our cause.

That’s just the way it is and a few people protesting will not change that preception if they are "defending" their right to carry a firearm near a US President. . If you have several hundred thousand people protesting that is a different story but I doubt you will ever see that. The average gun owner does not feel their right to own a gun is in jepority at this time and they are comfortable having organizations like the NRA be their watch dog. That could change, time will tell. Pick your fights, this is not one the gun guys will win.

 

[ATM]

Joe, you and a few others that are helping to make it socially acceptible to be walking around a Wal-Mart in Indianapolis with a exposed gun on your hip are probably less than one percent of the population in this country. Thanks for that! This "look at me, I have a gun on my hip and everything is just fine" does much to further the gun owners cause in this country. People expect to see LEO's with a firearm and it gives a sense of security to them; not the same with when Joe Public displays a firearm in public yet, but the people's "sense" of security is certainly not our duty or purpose. Carry on!

Hope ya don't mind... I just changed yours around and made it my own. Not directed at you, of course, just wanted to give kudos to Joe and the other 1% for what they do and have to put up with.

 

[dburkhead]

The role of the Secret Service is to protect the president and designated others in government. They have an obligation to make sure the president is not put in danger. If you or I are walking down the sidewalk a few blocks from where the president is speaking and we have a hangun conceiled on our person who is to know unless you go through a metal detector. If you are in the same place with an asault rifle slung over your back you are preceive to be a kook and will be treated as such. “Normal people” do not walk along a city street with a rifle on their back.

Nice of you to define "normal people" to suit yourself.

If someone "perceives" someone who is OC to be a "kook" (and this thread--and your comments on OC--are far more than just the AR15, which I would expect someone in your position to know is not an assault rifle, carried at the event in AZ) , the problem is theirs, not the person carrying.

Perception is everything, even going to a university to picket with a sign that has school spelled wrong. That made that protestor look like a dummy and who wants to be around a dummy with a gun? Unfortunately the gun owner is not like Acorn and get away with everything they do; not right but reality. We have to put our best face on everything we do to further our cause.

And, in your opinion, it would seem that "our best face" is to look like we're not carrying at all. And since "appearance is everything," the appearance of not carrying is, therefore, everything. So "our best face" is "not carrying."

I ask again: Has history ever shown a case of a right protected by hiding it? Ever.

You keep not answering that question. Is it because you don't like what the answer does to your "let's hide the guns" argument?

That’s just the way it is and a few people protesting will not change that preception if they are "defending" their right to carry a firearm near a US President. . If you have severa; hundred thousand people protesting that is a different story but I doubt you will ever see that. The average gun owner does not feel their right to own a gun is in jepority at this time and they are comfortable having organizations like the NRA be their watch dog. That could change, time will tell. Pick your fights, this is not one the gun guys will win.

You know, folk said that a few decades ago when various gay and lesbians started "coming out." "This is a bad time." "People will hate and fear." and so on. Funny thing is, the attitudes didn't start changing until after more people started coming out, until the "gay pride" and what not groups and marches started. Do I think that a lot of these people went over the top? Absolutely. However, the simple truth is that the protests, rallies, and public "display" of "gayness" lead to making being gay more acceptible to the general public.

You may feel more comfortable in the closet and I would be the last to deny your right to stay there, but you might want to think twice before disparaging people who are willing to stand up for your rights.

As for the NRA, I'm not an NRA basher but the best they have done, really, is fight a holding action and slow down the loss of rights. This has been important while the tide has been against us, but the strategy of holding actions will not win back the rights already lost. An aggressive campaign of pushing forward to regain lost rights is necessary or we will eventually lose everything.

Now, perhaps you are happy with the current status quo and see no reason to change. The problem with that, is that political situations are never static. Thomas Paine talked about this in "Common Sense." Even with "checks and balances" there's never a perfect balance and sooner or later one side picks up an advantage which turns in to more advantage and eventually snowballs. We either gain or we lose. Holding the status quo is never stable in he long run.

Are there risks involved in taking an active stand? Of course. However, "He who will not risk, cannot win." John Paul Jones.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Now you're getting the drift, no pun intended. It is called showing consideration for others around you.

If I must take a survey of everyone around me to see if the activity I'm about to do will offend anyone, I will never get anything accomplished. How do you know that OC in being inconsiderate? If it offends you personally thats fine, just don't think you speak for everyone.
I am very considerate to the public, I hold open doors, I help short old ladies get items from shelves they can't reach, I smile and ask how people are doing, I am a good citizen. My actions speak volumes more than the gun on my hip.

 

[Pale Rider]

This is just food for thought and my opinion nothing hostile

You have an option of carrying a gun for your protection without makings others uncomfortable; their only option is to leave the store if your gun makes them uncomfortable. You can have your cake and eat it too, they can't.

If this line of thinking is very utopian. Everyone is offended and made uncomfortable by certain things, different things. These guys walking into wal-mart make some people uneasy.. does that mean they can't or shouldn't wear their leather riding gear? Maybe trim their facial hair?

this young lady walking into wal-mart might make some people uneasy too, should she put more clothes on because her outfit offends people?

This young couple walking into wal-mart would probably make some people uncomfortable, should they have to change their hair style because someone doesn't like it?

This young man walking into wal-mart might make some people uneasy as well... should he change his appearance?

I was at the colts game this past friday night. They did a tribute to those serving in the military, and there were a lot of personnel in uniform (i was not one of them) During the national anthem an older couple with what appeared to be there grandkids kept talking telling the kids "look at this or look at that" "did you see?" While the rest of us were standing still and quiet. My buddy and I turned around after wards and conveyed (through body language) our frustration with their noise during our country national anthem. I cam home that night still a little bothered and told my roommate about it. His was response was as follows...

Him - "You're a soldier right?"
Me - "yes"
Him - "Then how can you even begin to get mad at them? You fight for their right to be disrespectful A-holes, and you volunteered for it! Yeah, they offended you but it was their right to speak and move and do what they wanted and soldiers like you have fought and died so they could."

I didn't like it but he was right. Do certain people, by either their actions, or appearance make me uncomfortable? yes. Would I ever think to voice my opinion to them rarely. Why? It's their right. What you find socially acceptable is all well and good but if your beliefs became law where would we end up? All dressed the same speaking the same and what kind of world is that? I hate those who OC just to "educate" "scare" or "get a point across" that's what rebelling teenagers do when they dress, listen to music or act in ways that their parents don't like. And you'll probably never see me OC, but ya know i still don't think it's MY right to hinder someone else's! So continue voicing your opinion here it's your right and I support and defend that! just thought i'd throw more of my in

 

[SavageEagle]

So what I caught out of the above is that it's not polite to OC because we might offend someone?

 

[jennybird]

Now you're getting the drift, no pun intended. It is called showing consideration for others around you.

So my children shouldn't be allowed to say The Pledge Of Allegiance every morning because it might offend someone else in the room?

The principal of a high school shouldn't say a prayer before a graduation ceremony because someone in the room might feel uncomfortable?

We shouldn't post the 10 Commandments in the courthouse display case because someone might not agree with them and be uncomfortable?

That sure is a politically correct world you want to live in. Count me out please.



Look, I'm a smoker. I don't smoke around other people, I don't smoke inside buildings (including my home), and I don't throw my butts on the ground. Why? Because I'm a considerate person. I will not however, worry about someone SEEING a pack of cigarettes in my posession. If that offends them, tough. Same goes for SEEING a gun in my posession. If they don't like it, they need to be considerate of my rights and simply stop looking.

 

[ddenny5]

Anti-gunners use the arguement that you are a target when OC. However, does that make a police officer a target while on duty? We must remember that criminals are cowards and do not want to get hurt or shot and will target those they know cannot defend themselves. Now if it is a Virginia Tech situation, I do not think the criminal is looking for someone who has a firearm. Those individuals are blinded by rage and hate. I do not believe that the criminal is looking for someone carrying a gun. He only wants the money or property. Many times we look at hypotheticals without having any evidence. I would go to the NRA website and search the Armed Citizen archives and see if any criminals have targeted open carriers.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Just sayin Yes that is a tsunami.

 

[SavageEagle]

So my children shouldn't be allowed to say The Pledge Of Allegiance every morning because it might offend someone else in the room?

The principal of a high school shouldn't say a prayer before a graduation ceremony because someone in the room might feel uncomfortable?

We shouldn't post the 10 Commandments in the courthouse display case because someone might not agree with them and be uncomfortable?

That sure is a politically correct world you want to live in. Count me out please.



Look, I'm a smoker. I don't smoke around other people, I don't smoke inside buildings (including my home), and I don't throw my butts on the ground. Why? Because I'm a considerate person. I will not however, worry about someone SEEING a pack of cigarettes in my posession. If that offends them, tough. Same goes for SEEING a gun in my posession. If they don't like it, they need to be considerate of my rights and simply stop looking.

EXACTLY. If my carrying openly offends you, oh well. If a football player kneeling to pray after a touchdown offends you, oh well. If a guy practicing Islam in a public park offends you, oh well. They have that right. You have the right to keep walking or look another way. You don't have to expose yourself to it.

Look, everyone's entitled to their opinions. Mine just happens to be that if more people OCed then the sheeple would have no choice but to get used to it. Either you respect other people's rights or you find a new, more socially acceptable Country to live in. Like China.

OCing does nothing to hurt our cause. Just as speaking out loud in a public place doesnt hurt anyone's 1st Amendment rights. Or someone refusing consent to search their vehicle during a routine traffic stop does nothing to hurt our 4th Amendment rights.

Not excersing them is what will allow government to take them away. If we offend people by exercising our rights, they have no place in America because those are the people who would take those rights away from us. I don't get offended when people exercise their rights. I do, however, get offended when they start infringing on other people's rights.

All the amendments apply to people as well as government in this Country because they are one in the same. Period.

 

[SavageEagle]

Just sayin Yes that is a tsunami.

Wow. I feel sorry for the camera... err... camera guy... Ok, no, I don't. He was stupid enough to stand there and take the picture. He musta lived through it though. Or, at least, the camera did....