Incident at Ireland TCU in South Bend

[Thegeek]

Actually, I'm pro OC, but I understand the need to CC and have no problem doing so when it's prudent.

If you OC in a public place and someone sees it from a distance. You never even noticed them. They go home, start writing letters because they don't think it's a good thing and they want it to be a gun free zone.... that's provication.

Pick any topic you want. Sportbikes, skateboards, saggy pants, smoking within X feet of the door.... all have behaviors that provoked someone into taking action. No you have signs for no exposed underwear, Jimmy Johns in Broadripple won't allow motorcycles in their lot even to eat, and in Greenfield, you can't smoke within 25 feet of a business. All because someone took issue, then took action. None of these had anything to do with the objects, only the behavior of the people involved.

Let me flip this around and ask your opinion. Where was the harm in just saying "sure, not a problem", covering up, then uncovering once he left?

 

[CPT Nervous]

Actually, I'm pro OC, but I understand the need to CC and have no problem doing so when it's prudent.

If you OC in a public place and someone sees it from a distance. You never even noticed them. They go home, start writing letters because they don't think it's a good thing and they want it to be a gun free zone.... that's provication.

Pick any topic you want. Sportbikes, skateboards, saggy pants, smoking within X feet of the door.... all have behaviors that provoked someone into taking action. No you have signs for no exposed underwear, Jimmy Johns in Broadripple won't allow motorcycles in their lot even to eat, and in Greenfield, you can't smoke within 25 feet of a business. All because someone took issue, then took action. None of these had anything to do with the objects, only the behavior of the people involved.

Let me flip this around and ask your opinion. Where was the harm in just saying "sure, not a problem", covering up, then uncovering once he left?

The harm? I don't have a Constitutional right to sportbikes, skateboards, saggy pants, or smoking within X feet of the door. I have a Constitutional RIGHT to openly carry a handgun.

Next question, please.

 

[CPT Nervous]

To add to that, I also want to say that I am a man of convictions and values. It would compromise my moral being to cover my gun. It is inappropriate to ask me to do so.

I open carry. If asked to cover or leave, I will open carry elsewhere.

^That is the very basis of what we're telling you. You seem to have a hard time grasping that. I WILL NOT COMPLY WITH ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% RESPECT OF MY RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Let me add one more thing. Where is the harm? The harm is that if we let them dictate our lives, they begin to dictate our lives. Again, how are you not getting this?

 

[CPT Nervous]

Your arguments are empty. You're grasping at air. Stop while you're behind, and we can let this all go.

 

[ATM]

I'd just like to add...



um...



no, I guess there's nothing left to add.




Carry on.

 

[Hammerhead]

The point is that he will choose when and where he will OC or CC, and it's not up to anyone else to decide for him.

Covering to appease some hoplophobe or tapinophobe is not what he's going to do. I agree with him. It's not your place to tell us that we should just comply.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Since you pissed me off so much, I have to do this, too.

Actually, I'm pro OC, but I understand the need to CC and have no problem doing so when it's prudent.

Why is there a need to CC? Indiana's first gun law banned CC. It was seen as shifty and sneaky. Why is there a need to CC? Explain it to me.

If you OC in a public place and someone sees it from a distance. You never even noticed them. They go home, start writing letters because they don't think it's a good thing and they want it to be a gun free zone.... that's provication.

Provocation?

So in that same sense, can I complain if I see someone not carrying a gun, and demand it be made an unarmed-free zone?

I have a Constitutional right to OC. They have no right whatsoever to not be offended.

Pick any topic you want. Sportbikes, skateboards, saggy pants, smoking within X feet of the door.... all have behaviors that provoked someone into taking action. No you have signs for no exposed underwear, Jimmy Johns in Broadripple won't allow motorcycles in their lot even to eat, and in Greenfield, you can't smoke within 25 feet of a business. All because someone took issue, then took action. None of these had anything to do with the objects, only the behavior of the people involved.

I already addressed this, but I have something else to add. You said that behaviors provoked people to take action. Are you saying that my behavior is inappropriate? What about my behavior will provoke action against OC?

Let me flip this around and ask your opinion. Where was the harm in just saying "sure, not a problem", covering up, then uncovering once he left?

I have a huge handprint on my face from the epic facepalm that your last comment warranted.

 

[Caleb]

Let me flip this around and ask your opinion. Where was the harm in just saying "sure, not a problem", covering up, then uncovering once he left?

Why the hell should I? Or anybody else for that matter? You **** me off, so maybe you should comply when I tell you to shut the hell up!



How do you like them apples?

 

[MikeDVB]

Whoa guys... Keep it civil .

 

[Caleb]

Whoa guys... Keep it civil .

Just for the record, I'm not pissed, just proving a point

 

[Thegeek]

The harm? I don't have a Constitutional right to sportbikes, skateboards, saggy pants, or smoking within X feet of the door. I have a Constitutional RIGHT to openly carry a handgun.

And your constitutional rights basically cease when you step foot onto private property. Go to McDonald's under some sort of health based protest and see how long they let you express your First Amendment rights. So your argument about losing your Rights is invalid. So I'll ask again, what harm is there in complying with the wishes of the property owner's representative? I'm a shareholder at the company where I work. They have a strict "no weapons" policy. Do you think I'd stand a chance in court if I carried to work and was fired when I explain to the judge that I'm part owner of the property? If it's really a Right, then why can't you carry into government buildings which are public property?

Why is there a need to CC? Indiana's first gun law banned CC. It was seen as shifty and sneaky. Why is there a need to CC? Explain it to me.

I occasionally like to go the the theater, the mall, and my bank without being treated like a criminal. The real question is why was the law later changed to allow CC?

Why the hell should I? Or anybody else for that matter? You **** me off, so maybe you should comply when I tell you to shut the hell up!

I don't know... maybe because the property owner or their representative asks you to? Take a trip to Madison WI and pretend you're carrying. There are very few places you can go where you don't see a "no guns" sign. Signs there carry force of law. Try to go get groceries, clothing, or any other necessity. You really can't survive there if you carry and follow the law. If we continue to attract negative attention, this is our future.

I will guarantee you that everywhere that there have been "open carry marches" it's pissed off an anti-gunner or anti-gun group to the point they're going to try and get the law changed.

These situations should prompt us instead to go to our legislators and demand that our constitutional rights be solidified. What really needs to happen is that some sort of preemption legislation needs to apply. There needs to be a clear distinction between private property, and private property open to the public. The right to defend one's self and the ability to be equipped to do so needs to be a Civil Right.

 

[actaeon277]

Haven't all points been made and rehashed?
Or is this thread going on forever?

 

[MikeDVB]

And your constitutional rights basically cease when you step foot onto private property.

My constitutional rights exist regardless. The issue is that I do not have a right to stand on your property but I do have the right to carry a firearm.

Go to McDonald's under some sort of health based protest and see how long they let you express your First Amendment rights.

You can express them all day long - just not on their property if they tell you to leave. Nothing is going to stop you from doing so just outside of their property line.

So your argument about losing your Rights is invalid. So I'll ask again, what harm is there in complying with the wishes of the property owner's representative?

The same amount of harm in not doing so [read: none.]

I'm a shareholder at the company where I work. They have a strict "no weapons" policy. Do you think I'd stand a chance in court if I carried to work and was fired when I explain to the judge that I'm part owner of the property?

Employment is not the same as Ownership and vice versa.

That said - I really don't know... If you are a shareholder by virtue of being a shareholder and not simply due to being an employee then I am not sure how that would be handled. I don't really see how it's related though - we're not talking about being fired for carrying a firearm at work, we're talking about simply refusing to cover a firearm that is legally carried.

If it's really a Right, then why can't you carry into government buildings which are public property?

Ever heard the word "infringed?" It is a right but, unfortunately, our government chooses not to see it that way. There are a lot of things the government does that they really shouldn't do according to the constitution but that's an entirely new topic for discussion.

I occasionally like to go the the theater, the mall, and my bank without being treated like a criminal.

So now it's not that you're making us look bad but that you just don't want to be treated like a criminal? Last I checked criminals are arrested - have you been arrested for openly carrying? No? Then why more apples to oranges?

The real question is why was the law later changed to allow CC?

It's not allowed it's just not disallowed. There is a huge difference between me telling you not to CC and me not telling you anything at all.

Why was the law changed? I don't know - there are laws that change all the time and I don't always know the reasons for those changes either.

I'm not sure what the law or government has to do with somebody refusing a request that one has no obligation to comply with...?

I don't know... maybe because the property owner or their representative asks you to?

I would see your point if and only if the person refused to cover and refused to leave. I would say, "I will not cover it, but I will leave if you wish for me to do so." No debate, no argument, no making 'us' look bad.

Take a trip to Madison WI and pretend you're carrying. There are very few places you can go where you don't see a "no guns" sign.

That's unfortunate and I hope that those in Madison WI are fighting to have such laws repealed.

Signs there carry force of law. Try to go get groceries, clothing, or any other necessity. You really can't survive there if you carry and follow the law. If we continue to attract negative attention, this is our future.

The only negative attention is people being irrationally fearful of inanimate tools. Covering up the firearm does not make it 'go away' or any more 'safe' than it was when it was visible - it's purely a feel good measure. If you wish to change the way you wear your firearm to appease others that's up to you - I won't tell you not to but I also expect you not to tell me how to go about my day either.

I will guarantee you that everywhere that there have been "open carry marches" it's pissed off an anti-gunner or anti-gun group to the point they're going to try and get the law changed.

You do realize the 'open carry marches' were in response to the anti-gun groups trying to make legal activities illegal right? If the anti's were not pushing so hard to make everything illegal there would be no reason to have an 'open carry march.'

These situations should prompt us instead to go to our legislators and demand that our constitutional rights be solidified.

Instead? We should be [and are] doing this already. One is not limited to doing one or the other - you can OC, refuse to cover, participate in an OC march if you wish, and push our legislators all at the same time. Last I checked I can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time as well .

What really needs to happen is that some sort of preemption legislation needs to apply.

Preemption legislation already exists in Indiana but you do not have a right to be on private property that you do not own or control and, as such, may have to leave that property if those in control of it wish it regardless of if it's due to you openly carrying a firearm or not having a shirt on.

There needs to be a clear distinction between private property, and private property open to the public. The right to defend one's self and the ability to be equipped to do so needs to be a Civil Right.

The right to bear arms and defend oneself is above a Civil right - it's a natural right. It's not granted by any government and can never be removed - only infringed upon.

Making gun ownership, carrying a gun, and the ability to defend yourself a "civil right" would be a few steps backwards from what it really is - a natural right.

 

[Thegeek]

Unfortunately, Civil Rights seem to have much more power now don't they? A business can't trample on your Civil Rights, but they can trample on your Natural and Constitutional Rights? Ok, so how about we propose a Natural Rights Act campaign?

We're on the same side, we're just choosing to go about it differently. I choose to not **** into the wind.

 

[MikeDVB]

Unfortunately, Civil Rights seem to have much more power now don't they? A business can't trample on your Civil Rights, but they can trample on your Natural and Constitutional Rights? Ok, so how about we propose a Natural Rights Act campaign?

It is what it is, unfortunately.

We're on the same side, we're just choosing to go about it differently. I choose to not **** into the wind.

You see it as pissing into the wind, I see it as going about my normal day to day business in the way I see fit.

 

[jgreiner]

Me thinks you are being a bit stubborn. Sure you have a right to carry openly--no one is arguing that point--but---in this day and age with all the shootings going on---you are hurting all of us gun owners. Consideration for others---especially when entering a bank or credit union---is certainly warrented. Just my opinon--

Methinks you are caving in to the anti-gun hysterics. WTF difference does it make HOW someone CHOOSES to carry. As long as they do so LEGALLY?

Hoplophobia is NOT the responsibility of those who carry, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of those AFFLICTED with it, just as every OTHER mental disorder is.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Methinks you are caving in to the anti-gun hysterics. WTF difference does it make HOW someone CHOOSES to carry. As long as they do so LEGALLY?

Hoplophobia is NOT the responsibility of those who carry, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of those AFFLICTED with it, just as every OTHER mental disorder is.

Let's focus on flaming Thegeek. Oldguyguns hasn't posted ITT since that ill conceived mixture of words.

 

[KG1]

I can't read all this when one post takes up almost half a page. C'mon fellas. Can you make a point without going line by line?

 

[daddymikey1975]

I can't read all this when one post takes up almost half a page. C'mon fellas. Can you make a point without going line by line?

That takes all the fun out of it