Open Carry - Favor Please?

[IndyMonkey]

What business of yours is that?

You want to answer the question I asked? What is the difference between losing a right due to surrendering it, and having it taken away by gun control advocates, some of them working from within the cause?

Because I see you here, thats why I ask. Just seeing how much I can get away with before Im tossed.

I didnt say the AR was going too far. I asked why its always a bunch of Dorks that get in these situations.

As for your question. If I surrender a right Im not really going to be mad about it. If one is taken away Im going to be pissed, and depending on what the circumstances it could be life altering for me and other people.

 

[r.o.b.o.]

There is absolutely no reason to carry an AR into a restaurant. Zero.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Now, plant this situation into the minds of our politicians. Lets take Mayor Ballard for example. Maybe he's just a RINO who doesn't appreciate gun-rights. Perhaps, however, he read about that dumb-*** in TN who decided to stroll down the state park jogging trail with an AK-47 "handgun" wearing cammo and he doesn't want to get blamed for an incident like that.

You might take a read through SavageEagle's long thread on INGO about the OC march in Indy last year, carrying long guns. No blood in the streets, no police response.

 

[ATM]

There is absolutely no reason to carry an AR into a restaurant. Zero.

 

[darinb]

I personally do not open carry but think it is great we have the right to just as driving a vehicle is but I would not drive on the sidewalk just to prove that the roads are too narrow. It is one thing to make a statement but I dont see them causing anyone to look at firearm owners in a positive way after this.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Are those clowns with AR's .... or girls with AR's that got into their moms makeup from the 80's?

 

[IndyMonkey]

I personally do not open carry but think it is great we have the right to just as driving a vehicle is but I would not drive on the sidewalk just to prove that the roads are too narrow. It is one thing to make a statement but I dont see them causing anyone to look at firearm owners in a positive way after this.

Driving a vehicle is not covered in the constitution.

 

[E5RANGER375]

and driving on the sidewalk is illegal!!! so sorry bad analogy car driver

 

[r.o.b.o.]

Carrying that AR is more like telling your mom to go F%$K herself. Its covered in the constitution but come on.....

 

[Bigum1969]

The AR was over the top.

It doesn't help the cause. Sheeple or whatever you want to call them are not going to be moved off their position positively by that.

 

[rlspach]

Blue Tile you bring up a good example. If you see folks marching with long guns in a protest, the intention of those people is quite clear...to demonstrate.

This is very much different than an individual walking into a town restaurant with a high capacity long arm - that person's intention is far from clear, thus the strong potential to create fear.

If someone can't see that this has a high probability to create fear, then that person's judgment is quite suspect. If the INTENTION is to create fear, that will work counter to our goals.

It is very similar to shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is none. It is intentionally creating a panic. Speech is also a protected right but that right can and is legally constrained.

 

[Roadie]

..and the best some of you can come up with in this discussion is insulting one of them because they are overweight?

 

[E5RANGER375]

Carrying that AR is more like telling your mom to go F% herself. Its covered in the constitution but come on.....

my moms a B*%#@

 

[lashicoN]

My only "cause" is freedom. Firearms are just a small portion of my "cause". I don't care if people think it's wrong to carry a rifle out in public. Most people also thought the world was flat. Majority doesn't make you right, it just makes you the majority. When will this public image campaign end? We have to dress up to open carry and we can't carry certain firearms because it might scare people. I DON'T CARRY A GUN TO MAKE PEOPLE FEEL AT EASE. If we continue down this road of "we don't need this" or "come on, you're making us look bad!" then we will all end up only allowed to carry unloaded, concealed handguns for the sole purpose of protest. I don't want people to think I'm harmless. I want criminals to know that I am willing to kill them if they try to do harm to me or my friends and family.

Rifles have so many more uses in this country than carrying them in protest. A lot of you guys should know that.

No, he didn't NEED to carry in the AR15, but as I've said before, a lot of us do a lot of things we don't NEED to do. And most of them aren't rights.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Blue Tile you bring up a good example. If you see folks marching with long guns in a protest, the intention of those people is quite clear...to demonstrate.

This is very much different than an individual walking into a town restaurant with a high capacity long arm - that person's intention is far from clear, thus the strong potential to create fear.

If someone can't see that this has a high probability to create fear, then that person's judgment is quite suspect. If the INTENTION is to create fear, that will work counter to our goals.

It is very similar to shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is none. It is intentionally creating a panic. Speech is also a protected right but that right can and is legally constrained.

Bear with me here, as I don't see the difference.

A group of people with long guns, marching toward the circle in Indy. Someone looks over from their car as they drive by.

A man with a rifle slung on his back enters a restaurant, orders his food, sits down, starts eating and reading the sports section.

In both hypotheticals I wrote, both can, IMO, be considered outside the comfort zone of some amount of persons because it is highly unusual to see someone in an urban setting with a long gun outside of their vehicle or house. I grant that, no matter how much I dislike it. I cannot remember if SE's group had any signs or not, but IIRC, they did not. My single point is that a group that many here expressed their opinion that they were going to be ticketed or sent to jail, weren't.

My point, again my only point, is that I don't consider this "over the top" as was stated a couple times earlier in the thread. I don't consider SE's march as "having got away with it once" (my idea - not a quote from you), but as an example that people may not have the same level of fear of firearms that firearm owners generally imbue them with. While I do not have the want or need to OC an AR into a restaurant, the guy was legal for doing it and I do not want to restrict his right to do something he is not legally prohibited from doing or I am being hypocritical in my stance of completely supporting the Constitution.

Good discussion!

 

[dburkhead]

There is absolutely no reason to carry an AR into a restaurant. Zero.

And the Brady Bunch sees absolutely no reason for you to carry a gun at all. Zero.

If I accept your "no reason" argument I have to accept theirs.

 

[rlspach]

Good discussion but the logic breaks down. I think our shared goal is to not be legally restricted in the ability to carry that AR-15 into that restaurant.

Unfortunately, our ability to do so CAN be legally restricted according to the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Because we live with other people, our feelings aren't the only ones that matter, so too are the feelings of others.

There is a socially acceptable line for behavior. It might not be the line that you like, but there is a line. My purpose in creating that thread is to suggest that we should be careful not to UNNECESSARILY cross that line. Freedom comes with responsibility. If you say you have no regards to the comfort of others, that seems to me to be both irresponsible and antisocial. If your goal is to move the line, then your approach must be done in such a way that brings people along not one that paints you as a threat by stepping so far over the line.

I'm confused by people who compare my logic to the Brady folks - I'm advocating self control, not legal restriction.

If people insist on abusing the line, society will rise up and enforce that line with law. We will all lose that freedom we cherish together. The public image campaign NEVER ends as long as you interact with the public.

 

[Hornett]

I've read at least ten of you say that the AR15 was just too much. It was over the top. None of you, not a single one, have said why. I agreed with you at first. But just think about it for two minutes. If we can carry handguns, why not long guns? What is the difference?

I said it back on page 5, but evidently you didn't see it so I will elaborate.
Just another way to say what rlspach already did a few pages back.

At the shoting range, what do you do with your rifle when you step away from the line?
Unload and secure it (in a rack or the case or lay it on the table)

When you get to the truck after hunting, what is the first thing you do?
Unload and secure your rifle or shotgun.

When you walk in to your hunting cabin after a long day, what do you do before you go in? Unload and secure your gun.

What did Davy Crockett do when he walked into the cabin? Put his gun away over the mantle.

This is not rocket science. We have all been taught proper gun handling since we were very small. When did the rules change? You can't tell me it's OK now. There is no social situation where we have been taught to carry a loaded rifle into a building. It's not tolerated at the shooting range, why should they put up with it at Ponderosa.

 

[dburkhead]

Good discussion but the logic breaks down. I think our shared goal is to not be legally restricted in the ability to carry that AR-15 into that restaurant.

What benefit is there to not having it "not be legally restricted" is if we insist on acting the same way as if it were legally restricted?

I say again: what's the point of having the "freedom" if one acts as if it's already lost?

"A man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over a man who can't read." Mark Twain.

"A man who doesn't carry a gun has no advantage over a man who can't." David Burkhead

 

[kingnereli]

This thread is a good example of why keeping the rights we have and regaining the rights we've lost is such an up hill battle. There are too many gun owners fighting against us. I can understand if some would have chosen a different tactic. However, saying the these guys were somehow irresponsible or harmful to our cause is nonsense. They did nothing illegal. They exercised their rights and created some awareness. It didn't go as well as they would have liked, but it isn't impossible to imagine some good coming of this. The news reported that there were no arrests. That could educate people that what they did was not illegal and no cause for alarm.

I said it back on page 5, but evidently you didn't see it so I will elaborate.
Just another way to say what rlspach already did a few pages back.

At the shoting range, what do you do with your rifle when you step away from the line?
Unload and secure it (in a rack or the case or lay it on the table)

When you get to the truck after hunting, what is the first thing you do?
Unload and secure your rifle or shotgun.

When you walk in to your hunting cabin after a long day, what do you do before you go in? Unload and secure your gun.

What did Davy Crockett do when he walked into the cabin? Put his gun away over the mantle.

This is not rocket science. We have all been taught proper gun handling since we were very small. When did the rules change? You can't tell me it's OK now. There is no social situation where we have been taught to carry a loaded rifle into a building. It's not tolerated at the shooting range, why should they put up with it at Ponderosa.

Speak for yourself. When did "proper gun handling" become keep long guns unloaded at all times? Every gun that I have for the purposes of self defense is ALWAYS loaded. In fact, that is a pretty common practice. They aren't much good empty.

Yes, the restaurant owner should have "put up with it" just as he should put up with any other legal activity. The fact that he agreed to the OC gathering when he thought there would only be pistols but freaked out when he saw an "assault rifle" is proof enough that this kind of thing needs to happen again. The only difference between carrying a a pistol and a long gun is that WE have let the longs guns become more taboo. And, by your logic, it would have been acceptable if he had carried an unloaded long gun, right. That is proper gun handling after all.