Open Carry - Favor Please?

[IndyMonkey]

Do you guys see now why we've been arguing what we've been arguing? When you open the door to "why does someone need an AR" you quickly walk into a room where people are saying "We should ban ARs and other non-hunting rifles." R.O.B.O., you aren't pro-gun in any sense of the word. There are many of us here that disagree with your comment to the point of disgusting us, but we still wouldn't vote away your freedom of speech. You deserve it, as an American, just as we deserve the right to keep and bear arms.

As for your logical reason, I'm not going to sugar-coat it. I have a rifle for the protection of myself, my family, and my friends. I hope I don't ever have to use it, but if I do have to ever kill someone, I want my retractable stock, fore grip, and 30 round magazine. It doesn't get much more logical than that. Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your house or a tire iron in your car? Same basic principle, I don't want to get a flat tire or have my house burn down, but in case they do happen I can possibly put the fire out or fix the flat, without calling the fire department or police for roadside assistance. And by doing these things, I save you tax dollars. I accept your thanks, R.O.B.O.

I have seen the enemy and he is our brother in arms.

 

[dburkhead]

"Reasonably good" could mean no carrying of semi-automatic rifles in public

"Reasonably good" means that as long as they aren't actually hurting anybody or attempting to hurt anybody then they can carry what they want.

There is no right not to be offended or even "freaked out."

 

[r.o.b.o.]

Do you guys see now why we've been arguing what we've been arguing? When you open the door to "why does someone need an AR" you quickly walk into a room where people are saying "We should ban ARs and other non-hunting rifles." R.O.B.O., you aren't pro-gun in any sense of the word. There are many of us here that disagree with your comment to the point of disgusting us, but we still wouldn't vote away your freedom of speech. You deserve it, as an American, just as we deserve the right to keep and bear arms.

As for your logical reason, I'm not going to sugar-coat it. I have a rifle for the protection of myself, my family, and my friends. I hope I don't ever have to use it, but if I do have to ever kill someone, I want my retractable stock, fore grip, and 30 round magazine. It doesn't get much more logical than that. Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your house or a tire iron in your car? Same basic principle, I don't want to get a flat tire or have my house burn down, but in case they do happen I can possibly put the fire out or fix the flat, without calling the fire department or police for roadside assistance. And by doing these things, I save you tax dollars. I accept your thanks, R.O.B.O.

Yea I have a fire extinguisher, I don't have a fire truck at my house though. A firetruck would be excessive, as is carrying an AR for personal protection.

I am pro-gun but not unregulated, obviously some people don't have common sense

 

[r.o.b.o.]

"Reasonably good" means that as long as they aren't actually hurting anybody or attempting to hurt anybody then they can carry what they want.

There is no right not to be offended or even "freaked out."

So its ok if you make everyone you see miserable every day as long as you get to do what you want? People kill themselves over that type of stuff you know.

 

[dburkhead]

Do you guys see now why we've been arguing what we've been arguing? When you open the door to "why does someone need an AR" you quickly walk into a room where people are saying "We should ban ARs and other non-hunting rifles." R.O.B.O., you aren't pro-gun in any sense of the word. There are many of us here that disagree with your comment to the point of disgusting us, but we still wouldn't vote away your freedom of speech. You deserve it, as an American, just as we deserve the right to keep and bear arms.

As for your logical reason, I'm not going to sugar-coat it. I have a rifle for the protection of myself, my family, and my friends. I hope I don't ever have to use it, but if I do have to ever kill someone, I want my retractable stock, fore grip, and 30 round magazine. It doesn't get much more logical than that. Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your house or a tire iron in your car? Same basic principle, I don't want to get a flat tire or have my house burn down, but in case they do happen I can possibly put the fire out or fix the flat, without calling the fire department or police for roadside assistance. And by doing these things, I save you tax dollars. I accept your thanks, R.O.B.O.

Pro-gun is as pro-gun does. And it's the easiest thing in the world for an anti to say "I'm pro gun but...." followed by some bit of anti-gun propaganda.

I do think the person in the OP with the AR was a bit excessive because I think that "desensitization" works best in smaller steps. But, unlike some, I am not willing to "throw him under the bus" for taking an approach with which I personally disagree. If something like that leads to further restrictions on gun rights it will not be because of the guy with the AR, nor because of the soccer moms and antis getting upset. It will be because of self-proclaimed "pro gun" folk abandoning one of their number to the wolves. Something I've posted before:

One strategy that has worked very well for anti-gun groups in the past has been "divide and conquer" tell some people (e.g. hunters) that they support your right to get them to stand aside while others rights are restricted. In an effort to help combat that, I've composed the following. Please feel free to pass it around:

First they came for the "assault weapons"
but I didn't speak up because who needs an assault weapon?

Then they came for the Saturday Night Specials,
but I didn't speak up because they're just junk guns.

Then they came for the high capacity magazines,
but I didn't speak up because I only need a few rounds in the tube

Then they came for all the handguns,
but I didn't speak up because I don't use a handgun to hunt

Then they came for the High Powered Sniper Rifles,
but I didn't speak up because I don't use one of those.

When they came for the shotguns and muzzleloaders,
there was no one left to speak up.

Folks, the anti-gun crowd are not going to leave you alone. Just because they aren't going after you today, just because they claim that they support your "right to hunt," don't be fooled. They say we need to compromise, but we've been "compromising" since 1934. The ink isn't even dry on each new "agreement" before thay are talking about the "next step." Each time you fail to support some portion of the community of law-abiding gun owners, you weaken yourself against the time they eventually come after you.

It's time to stop compromising. It's time to get back our rights.

 

[dburkhead]

So its ok if you make everyone you see miserable every day as long as you get to do what you want? People kill themselves over that type of stuff you know.

You mean like in Japan where the suicide rate is higher than our suicide and homicide rates combined?

Why is it okay for you to inflict your will on others who disagree with you but not okay for someone else.

As for "make everyone miserable every day" that's a load of . People get used to all sorts of things far more extreme than seeing someone carrying a rifle. If people really carried with that kind of frequency they would soon cease to think much about it.

 

[Hornett]

There is too much posturing and grandstanding gong on around here.

It's not "Carry an AR" vs "Total Gun Ban"

Instead of rape and murder, let's say taking a bath.
It is not illegal to be dirty and stink.
And I can exercise my right to not bathe, but I don't because of social norms.
I don't want to make bathing a legal requirement, I just want to eat at Ponderosa without stinking people ruining my dinner.

I have been in literally thousands of restaurants in my life.
Ponderosa, Golden Corral, Ryan's Steakhouse, McDonalds, Arby's, on and on...
Out of all of those thousands of trips, I have never seen an AR15, or a shotgun, or any other rifle. Not a single one.
Now I don't want to outlaw long guns anymore than I want to outlaw stinking, but I don't want people raising my threat level during my dinner either.

 

[r.o.b.o.]

Why is it okay for you to inflict your will on others who disagree with you but not okay for someone else.

Exactly. There's two sides to that statement you just made. Some people don't want you walking around with AR's just as much as you want to walk around with your AR.

I don't agree with a lot of laws but some are needed. Unfortunately its determing which are needed and which are common courtousy and not needed which is difficult.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

I am pro-gun snip

Why do you keep saying that? Clearly, you are not.

But here's a goody for you. I see no reason for people to own high powered hunting rifles. I do not want one, and see no reason for people to own rifles capable of killing humans over 800 yards away, especially since those bolt action rifles were designed to do specifically that. They were designed to kill people, plain and simple. Deer and other animals can be hunted quite well with shotguns, so I see no reason for such long range killing machines, each bullet far more dangerous to bystanders than any AR could ever be, to be in the hands of private citizens.

And, I'm serious about that. I see no need for the guns. I don't want one, don't own one. I own a muzzleloader for deer hunting, it's more than sufficient. Using your reasoning, I should be lobbying and voting against possession of smokeless hunting rifles.

Don't think I'm going to do that, though. I like our Constitution the way it is, I prefer freedom, and I don't think the fact that I have no desire for something means I have the right to deprive other of it.

I also think golf courses are an ecological travesty, but I reckon that can be another discussion when we get around to banning them since I see no need for them.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I am pro-guns but threads like this lean me towards seeing the point of view of anti-gun enthusiasts. Has anyone given a logical reason on why someone would need an AR for personal protection? Yea the law says its ok but really is there a realistic reason to do it? I would vote to ban AR and other rifle and shotgun carry besides hunting after hearing the ideology of the gun activists in this thread.

HMMMMMMMMM,,,, NANCY??? NANCY PELOSI ???? how did you get in here?

 

[r.o.b.o.]

I said "I am pro-gun but not unregulated" You missed the rest of the quote. Are you a reporter cutting out what you need for your story?

 

[r.o.b.o.]

Nancy is my mother

 

[dburkhead]

There is too much posturing and grandstanding gong on around here.

It's not "Carry an AR" vs "Total Gun Ban"

The problem is that the arguments against "carry an AR" are also arguments against carry in general. If you validate them then you make it that much harder to refute them when they come after the gun you do carry.

 

[dburkhead]

I said "I am pro-gun but not unregulated" You missed the rest of the quote. Are you a reporter cutting out what you need for your story?

I've looked at your posting history. The only "pro-gun" thing I've seen is that you are getting an LTCH.

Diane Feinstein got her State's equivalent (California's CCW).

I don't dispute the "not unregulated" part. I dispute the "pro-gun" part and I'm pretty sure Joe does the same.

 

[r.o.b.o.]

Why do you keep saying that? Clearly, you are not.

But here's a goody for you. I see no reason for people to own high powered hunting rifles. I do not want one, and see no reason for people to own rifles capable of killing humans over 800 yards away, especially since those bolt action rifles were designed to do specifically that. They were designed to kill people, plain and simple. Deer and other animals can be hunted quite well with shotguns, so I see no reason for such long range killing machines, each bullet far more dangerous to bystanders than any AR could ever be, to be in the hands of private citizens.

And, I'm serious about that. I see no need for the guns. I don't want one, don't own one. I own a muzzleloader for deer hunting, it's more than sufficient. Using your reasoning, I should be lobbying and voting against possession of smokeless hunting rifles.

Don't think I'm going to do that, though. I like our Constitution the way it is, I prefer freedom, and I don't think the fact that I have no desire for something means I have the right to deprive other of it.

I also think golf courses are an ecological travesty, but I reckon that can be another discussion when we get around to banning them since I see no need for them.

In indiana those long range rifles are not needed. Hey imagine that there is even a law saying you cant use them to hunt deer. But in other states the terrain varies. There are instances where you need that long range rifle or you will never get your prey. Try using that muzzleloader to hunt mountain goats

 

[r.o.b.o.]

Ok I'm just post whoring now.......I'm outta here

 

[dburkhead]

Exactly. There's two sides to that statement you just made. Some people don't want you walking around with AR's just as much as you want to walk around with your AR.

And some people don't want you walking around with

I don't agree with a lot of laws but some are needed. Unfortunately its determing which are needed and which are common courtousy and not needed which is difficult.

Not so difficult. The Constitution is clear on the matter. The 2nd, as modified by the 5th ("nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" implying that liberty--including RKBA--can be deprived with due process).

It's folk with an agenda who can't get the supermajority necessary to amend the Constitution properly trying to find ways to justify "reinterpreting" it to do what they want that's difficult.

 

[Joe Williams]

I said "I am pro-gun but not unregulated" You missed the rest of the quote. Are you a reporter cutting out what you need for your story?

No, I didn't miss the rest of your quote. I merely ignored it as the BS it is.

Your viewpoint is flat out anti-gun, no matter how loudly you try to proclaim otherwise. No different than a Klukker trying to say how he has a good friend that is black, so he must be all for equal rights. Frankly, folks like you are why we came so close to being completely disarmed, and why we must fight vigorously against all enemies. Even those who, like Nancy Pelosi and Rosie O'Donnel, think guns are ok for them, but not others.

I'm glad you are here. Your viewpoint illustrates perfectly why we must continue to adopt widespread confrontation with gun banners and their appeasers, and what we have to look forward to if we again go down the road of "reasonable" compromise. "Compromising" away our Constitution is for those too weak and cowardly to be free, and we have only ourselves to blame if we surrender to those willing to do so.

 

[KDUBCR250]

IMHO they did nothing wrong/against the law and exercised their 2nd amendment rights. Big props to them.

 

[r.o.b.o.]

No, I didn't miss the rest of your quote. I merely ignored it as the BS it is.

Your viewpoint is flat out anti-gun, no matter how loudly you try to proclaim otherwise. No different than a Klukker trying to say how he has a good friend that is black, so he must be all for equal rights. Frankly, folks like you are why we came so close to being completely disarmed, and why we must fight vigorously against all enemies. Even those who, like Nancy Pelosi and Rosie O'Donnel, think guns are ok for them, but not others.

I'm glad you are here. Your viewpoint illustrates perfectly why we must continue to adopt widespread confrontation with gun banners and their appeasers, and what we have to look forward to if we again go down the road of "reasonable" compromise. "Compromising" away our Constitution is for those too weak and cowardly to be free, and we have only ourselves to blame if we surrender to those willing to do so.

And I am glad you are here. You have showed me why many people are anti-gun. Some of you are so extreme it is disturbing.