Nothing about what I said was irrelevant, but you're entitled to think that. Traditional carry of handguns is more practical then carrying a rifle. An exception to this can be seen in rifle carry in a rural setting, but not in an urban setting in a restaurant. Given the impractical nature of this, rifle carry will not be as socially acceptable as handgun carry. There, sir, is your relevance.
No, I don't have to admit that.
Allow me to reiterate my point. Since rifle carry in an urban setting is impractical in comparison with open carry of a handgun, it's of course going to be seen as less socially acceptable than carrying a handgun. I am seeing similarities but I don't think open rifle carry will ever benefit the guns rights community. I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Of course, I concede that I could be wrong but I don't think much will change unless open rifle carry becomes practical in the urban setting. All of you keep bringing up this whole thing about rights. Tell me what this would accomplish if legislation was passed banning open rifle carry. Give my he current political climate, I have my doubts such a law would get struck down in court.
Let me reiterate my point. That's not what I asked.
I did ask that. Thank you for your answer.
For the last time I'll give you my answer about this "traditional handgun carry" you claim I know nothing about. It has practicality and was able to gain enough support from the masses to pass with the support of various groups including the NRA who were able to push shall issue carry laws, the first of which passed in Florida. However, the same said group, the NRA, doesn't even support this rifle carry thing because of the negative backlash that followed. I keep saying it has no practical use and you keep saying as much is irrelevant without any support to back such a claim while I have continued to support everything I have said. You, on the other hand, offer little to no support besides repeating your questions (like I didn't understand them the first time I read them and felt I had answered them, evidently you didn't get that) and then asserting I don't know what I'm talking about although I have conceded, more than once I might add, that I could be wrong in some of my points but they are my opinions backed by what seems to be reasonable evidence. You haven't offered any rebuttals besides the ones I've mentioned and haven't offered any further evidence for your points. Finally, I must apologize, but I have no idea where you're going with the MDA comparison you've made. I just hope you know we're playing right into their hands because they want us to be divided. It's easier to divide and conquer.
If you have to say that word, then you have negated what preceded it. You aren't "all about OC." You're grudgingly accepting of OC on your terms.
Blacks being served at the same lunch counters as whites made people uneasy. Blacks drinking from the same water fountain, using the same laundry facilities, riding the same bus, going to the same schools made people uneasy. Heaven forbid we make people uneasy. Let's help them perpetuate the tyranny by behaving as if their irrational perceptions are an accurate representation of reality. I'd rather see a slew of long guns in a restaurant than the 350lb shopper in a size 14 sweat pants with the thong showing. I am beyond uneasy upon seeing that. People are scared of guns because they have only one point of comparison. You're trying to tell me that letting Shannon and her MDA hacks define the issue is better than giving the public an alternative reality?
How is this relevant? Not only did smokers not have to deal with their own telling them to hide their cigs, it's a clear violation of property rights and personal rights.
BS. Nobody is respecting my rights. It's only about respecting the feelings of scared people who don't have an alternative point of view to digest.
OC does not affect the rights of others.
You didn't answer my question. I asked you if the solution was to GIVE UP THOSE RIGHTS VOLUNTARILY because they were socially frowned upon.
And why do you think this is so? All of the people choosing to CC because OC makes the populace 'uneasy?' Do you see the contradiction in your logic?How long did the Civil Rights movement last? And you think we're going to fix all the ills society has with firearms in a time frame shorter than the WNBA season?
I don't see Kermit Gosnell ending the pro-abortion movement. I don't see NAMBLA ending the pro-homosexuality movement. King going to jail didn't stop Civil Rights. (And by "pro," I mean nothing more than socially acceptable.)
Well, to be fair, it's only a half truth. You support liberty as long as it makes you comfortable.
No, it didn't. They didn't hide them in order to try and keep them.
To be honest, it's just a few points I feel I have adequate evidence to back up. I've admitted I could be in the wrong, however, I wish to see evidence that would prove me wrong. I'm not afraid to admit as much and personally believe politicians should have the same practices.
Florida still doesn't have traditional carry. They're still concealed only unless hunting/fishing or en route.
You haven't proven relevance. In order to make an argument, you can't just make a statement and claim that it supports your assertion
My point is that in the earlier days of traditional/open carry discussion, the exact arguments that you are using against rifle carry were used ad nauseum against handgun traditional carry. Go back and read some threads from 2008-2009 if you want to learn about it.
The MDA comparison is pointing out that you're taking their side. They can't divide us. They're outside of us. You are dividing us by saying I'm a gun owner and I'm against what gun owners do.
Well I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who sees the damaging effects of open carry of a rifle in a resturant, as much can be attested here. Unfortunatly, not everyone is as understanding as we are to this (I'm not totally against this form of carry). I for one am not personally all too bothered about it, however, the media has painted these scary "assault" rifles in such a negative picture that such unfavorable backlash is to be expected. I thought the NRA point was relatively clear but I'll endulge deeper. The NRA is the biggest 2nd amendment group in the country and to some, the most powerful lobbyist. Having their support is pretty much vital in getting most gun laws passed (at least, from my political studies, having the support of such interst groups is vital because the way out system works in modern times). That is the relevance I thought would be clear because it was a given.
