OC mindset

[24Carat]

This whole line of thought about being "the first one in the room to get shot" needs to be put to rest with a 12 ft headstone erected above it.

Any semi competent Google Fu Artiest can find NADA, ZIP, ZERO incidence of this happening anywhere, anywho, anyhow nation wide.

SO DROP THE DRIVEL ! Geez !

 

[hopper68]

TF I meant no disrespect. Just trying to make the point even though you promote OC, you have nothing against those of us who mainly CC.
As for those who think OCers do it for a big pay day, the Culver's 5 in Wisconsin did not get that much money for having their rights violated. Cases like these help educate those who have been lied to about their rights and rights of others.

 

[JetGirl]

Guys, if you think covering up your gun keeps you safer, do it. I'm more realistic than that.

I don't think CCing makes me "safer", but it does keep my bidness MY bidness. If I want somebody to know...ohhhh they'llll know.
Other than that, I want to be the only one who knows I'm carrying.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I don't think CCing makes me "safer", but it does keep my bidness MY bidness. If I want somebody to know...ohhhh they'llll know.
Other than that, I want to be the only one who knows I'm carrying.

Blah Blah Blah, that was all I heard the monkey say and then I saw the gun

 

[hopper68]

And to make one thing clear. In my earlier post I meant people would not come to TFs after trial party because they disagreed with him. Their decission, no one else's.

 

[goinggreyfast]

Blah Blah Blah, that was all I heard the monkey say and then I saw the gun

Again, I feel compelled to say:

 

[CX1]

This whole line of thought about being "the first one in the room to get shot" needs to be put to rest with a 12 ft headstone erected above it.

Any semi competent Google Fu Artiest can find NADA, ZIP, ZERO incidence of this happening anywhere, anywho, anyhow nation wide.

SO DROP THE DRIVEL ! Geez !

This does seem like a valid point.
Of all the shooting/robbery videos I've watched on YouTube I don't recall any where there is a non-security person OCing and the robbery still happens.

 

[Steelman]

Somehow I think you might present a better point if you pull up your pants and stop talking out of your posterior.

I don't see how that will help. I communicate best when I speak to people on their level.

You were on my ignore list, but I foolishly opened your post just to see what self-righteous nonsense you were spewing today.

You are not a folk hero, your case is a drain on the taxpayers. Court time, costs, officer testimony and jury pay all must be paid from somewhere.

How will your big payday be funded - provided you win? Who picks up the tab? $$$

All this because you have to fight the "good fight" and could not untuck a shirt. Malarkey.


I guess we preserve the rights that require the least effort and the greatest reward.

If only you could wear a neck brace into court - our little inside joke.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I don't see how that will help. I communicate best when I speak to people on their level.

You were on my ignore list, but I foolishly opened your post just to see what self-righteous nonsense you were spewing today.

You are not a folk hero, your case is a drain on the taxpayers. Court time, costs, officer testimony and jury pay all must be paid from somewhere.

How will your big payday be funded - provided you win? Who picks up the tab? $$$

All this because you have to fight the "good fight" and could not untuck a shirt. Malarkey.


I guess we preserve the rights that require the least effort and the greatest reward.

If only you could wear a neck brace into court - our little inside joke.

The police could have ended this a week after it happened. They chose to drag it out for over a year.

They could have also prevented this by them not causing a scene at the zoo.

Yes, it sucks that the taxpayers will have to pay for this, the offending officers should be the ones made to pay for this.

I never recall him ever claiming to be a hero, just someone that had his rights violated by the ones that are charged with protecting the community.

 

[MikeDVB]

This does seem like a valid point.
Of all the shooting/robbery videos I've watched on YouTube I don't recall any where there is a non-security person OCing and the robbery still happens.

And there is probably a reason you don't see it .

Let me pose a similar and related situation.

You see two houses on a street, one has a sign by each entry and window with the image of a gun and the message, "We're armed and willing to defend our property and our lives." and the other has no such signage.

Which would you, as a robber, feel was the "safer" target - and which do you think you would rob all else equal? Let's assume that there is a car in both drive-ways, and a TV on in both houses (i.e. you think somebody is there). Let's also assume you are going to rob one of the two houses no matter what, it's just a choice of which.

-----

If you're a reasonable individual, you would not rob the one that has it clearly posted that they are armed, and will defend themselves. Does this mean the occupant(s) of the other house are not armed? No... But the chances are greater of the one announcing it to the world actually being armed.

-----

Now change the two houses to two stores, and the signage to a customer OC'ing versus a customer CC'ing (one in each store). Assuming the criminal spots the weapon of the OC'er, which establishment do you think they're going to rob?

Criminals may not be the most intelligent bunch, but they do tend to still have self-preservation instincts as well as enough common sense to know that if they rob a place where they know somebody is armed - they are more likely to be shot than if they rob a place where nobody is visibly armed.

People almost always take the easiest path of least resistance. Shooting somebody because they have a gun, so you can rob a cash register isn't usually the easiest course of action. Coming back later when nobody is [visibly] armed, or choosing another location where nobody is [visibly] armed would be the easier and safer course of action for a criminal.

The way I see it, CCing makes you more likely to have to use your weapon and puts you in the disadvantaged position of having to react versus avoidance or being proactive - but that's my opinion. I do CC myself from time to time, and do not pass any judgement whatsoever on anybody who chooses to CC.

 

[Cemetery-man]

Ok. After reading all these posts, I now have come to the conclusion that people who OC hate people who CC and vice versa.

Not really, but anyone new to this forum would probably think so after reading through all the anger and hatred this subject always brings up amongst fellow gun owners.

 

[Steelman]

At what point is one at fault for a legal activity?

Please read and re-read - then read again. No one disputes the legality of OC. My issue is with those that must flaunt the fact that they are carrying a gun in environments where it's not commonly seen.

They must force this upon the public. There is no middle ground or courtesy provided. If they do not like OC - they can pack up their kids and leave.

The young mother that called the police on an OCer has no idea if you're there to do her or her family harm. She may be unclear that a LTCH is issued by Indiana. And she likely doesn't want some putz with a "Pork Eating Crusader" t-shirt lecturing her on State law.

This same mother probably votes and will remember her encounter with Cletus at her child's birthday party. Why would she support him? Another anti-gun vote is cast.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't see how that will help. I communicate best when I speak to people on their level.

You were on my ignore list, but I foolishly opened your post just to see what self-righteous nonsense you were spewing today.

You are not a folk hero, your case is a drain on the taxpayers. Court time, costs, officer testimony and jury pay all must be paid from somewhere.

How will your big payday be funded - provided you win? Who picks up the tab? $$$

All this because you have to fight the "good fight" and could not untuck a shirt. Malarkey.


I guess we preserve the rights that require the least effort and the greatest reward.

If only you could wear a neck brace into court - our little inside joke.

In case you have failed to notice, rights which are not exercised and not defended when infringed cease to be recognized as rights. You can read through the United States Code and also the laws of most states and many local governments and see the evidence of them, if you can understand the mind-boggling array of lawyerese you will encounter.

You will note that when rights are infringed, the defense and penalties (if applicable) almost always come from the treasury of government organization employing the offending parties rather than the offenders themselves. Given you position on standing for the right to open carry, I would suggest that you maintain your position and also disregard the information shared in the Survival and Disaster Preparedness section, refrain from purchasing food, medical and hygienic supplies and weapons and buy a great deal of Vaseline. You are going to need it if you continue down the path of voluntarily giving up rights because fighting for them will cause expense to the public treasury as opposed to coming out of the pockets of the offending personnel (as it should). Regardless of the motive for doing so, at the end of this path, you WILL be dropping your drawers and grabbing your ankles.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Cops openly carry guns everywhere, and a tazer, club and cuffs, that scares me. I do not think they should be intimidating me like that.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Please read and re-read - then read again. No one disputes the legality of OC. My issue is with those that must flaunt the fact that they are carrying a gun in environments where it's not commonly seen.

They must force this upon the public. There is no middle ground or courtesy provided. If they do not like OC - they can pack up their kids and leave.

The young mother that called the police on an OCer has no idea if you're there to do her or her family harm. She may be unclear that a LTCH is issued by Indiana. And she likely doesn't want some putz with a "Pork Eating Crusader" t-shirt lecturing her on State law.

This same mother probably votes and will remember her encounter with Cletus at her child's birthday party. Why would she support him? Another anti-gun vote is cast.

By this logic, she could argue that if TF has a dick he intends to rape her. Before any wise guy bring this into an oc/cc argument, remember that with the squeamish and guns it isn't an oc/cc argument, it is that if a person chooses to cc, then they don't consider that he or she is armed and assume that the person engaging is cc is NOT armed, as opposed to the fact that they are simply not specifically aware of it.

 

[MikeDVB]

Please read and re-read - then read again. No one disputes the legality of OC. My issue is with those that must flaunt the fact that they are carrying a gun in environments where it's not commonly seen.

So let me get this straight... If it *were* commonly seen, then it would not be flaunting and, as such, you would have no issue with it?

So you do not have an issue with OC, just an issue with the fact that so few do OC? Your position is starting to crumble .

They must force this upon the public. There is no middle ground or courtesy provided. If they do not like OC - they can pack up their kids and leave.

And I must force my face into their presence as well... If they do not like my face - they can pack up their kids and leave. Replace "face" with "gun" and you end up with the same overall statement. I am not going to change my face or my carry to make other people happy when I am 100% legal doing what I do.

The young mother that called the police on an OCer has no idea if you're there to do her or her family harm. She may be unclear that a LTCH is issued by Indiana. And she likely doesn't want some putz with a "Pork Eating Crusader" t-shirt lecturing her on State law.

She is ignorant and uneducated on the matter, so I should hide my legal activity because of this?

This same mother probably votes and will remember her encounter with Cletus at her child's birthday party. Why would she support him? Another anti-gun vote is cast.

So anything that anybody thinks is illegal [when it isn't], we should not do for fear that they might vote against it?

I better not carry my gun, somebody might see it and vote against it... Better keep it locked away... I mean being able to carry (but not doing so) is better than not being able to carry at all, right?

Do you realize how silly you sound?

 

[MikeDVB]

By this logic, she could argue that if TF has a dick he intends to rape her.

He has a car, obviously he intends to run her and her family over.

Some people simply have no logic, it seems.

 

[Roadie]

Please read and re-read - then read again. No one disputes the legality of OC. My issue is with those that must flaunt the fact that they are carrying a gun in environments where it's not commonly seen.

They must force this upon the public. There is no middle ground or courtesy provided. If they do not like OC - they can pack up their kids and leave.

The young mother that called the police on an OCer has no idea if you're there to do her or her family harm. She may be unclear that a LTCH is issued by Indiana. And she likely doesn't want some putz with a "Pork Eating Crusader" t-shirt lecturing her on State law.

This same mother probably votes and will remember her encounter with Cletus at her child's birthday party. Why would she support him? Another anti-gun vote is cast.

No one disputes the legality of [wearing a burka]. My issue is with those that must flaunt the fact that they are [wearing one] in environments where it's not commonly seen.

They must force this upon the public. There is no middle ground or courtesy provided. If they do not like [burkas] - they can pack up their kids and leave.

The young mother that called the police on the [person wearing a burka] has no idea if you're there to do her or her family harm. She may be unclear that a [burka is worn by peaceful Muslims, not just extremists]. And she likely doesn't want some putz [wearing a burka] lecturing her on State law.

This same mother probably votes and will remember her encounter with [Aisha] at her child's birthday party. Why would she support [her]? Another anti-gun vote is cast.

 

[Steelman]

The police could have ended this a week after it happened. They chose to drag it out for over a year.

They could have also prevented this by them not causing a scene at the zoo.

Yes, it sucks that the taxpayers will have to pay for this, the offending officers should be the ones made to pay for this.

I never recall him ever claiming to be a hero, just someone that had his rights violated by the ones that are charged with protecting the community.

He could've untucked his shirt as a courtesy. End of story.

The taxpayers foot the bill. I have no idea how any Republican/Conservative/Libertarian can get behind this.

Of course he does not come out and say "I'm a hero". Read his posts, they are full of melodrama and perceived sacrifice for the greater good of the 2A community. He is doing this for "us".

The Hero of [STRIKE]Canton[/STRIKE] Evansville! [STRIKE]Jayne Cobb[/STRIKE] Titanium Frost!

 

[MikeDVB]

He could've untucked his shirt as a courtesy. End of story.

So if somebody comes up and asks you to do something, that you have no legal obligation to do, and you do not want to do it, you should do so out of courtesy? Why?

Also, please address my previous posts instead of overlooking them. You make an argument, I refute your statements - the least you can do is explain to me how I am wrong, and you are right. I'd love to hear it ... oh ... and do it without picking apart what I've said - refute *everything* that I've said.