Open Carry Incident - Vincennes

[churchmouse]

This has gotten interesting.
I am seeing some really good opinions on both sides of this argument. It has become an argument yet civil.
Again....perception to what is right or wrong.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

It's also founded in a way that when too many people dare to be stupid too often, people "legislate" their butts back to intelligence, at the the expense of everyone else's rights.

If the fear of potential future actions by a misguided and tyrannical legislature are so paralyzing that it prevents the exercise of a God-given right, then the tyrants have already won.

 

[actaeon277]

Just not really sure what this accomplishes... I would hate to live in society where carrying an AR was normal.

It wasn't very long ago that kids could walk down Broadway in Gary with a .22 or a shotgun, and NO ONE called the police.
We keep taking steps back so that we don't "offend" anyone and lose our rights.
And we keep taking steps back.
If you went back 60 years and told them all the rules going on now, people would laugh at you.
By giving in, it has become the new normal.
So what the heck, we'll all CC a pistol.
Till even that becomes "odd".

It's also founded in a way that when too many people dare to be stupid too often, people "legislate" their butts back to intelligence, at the the expense of everyone else's rights.

Then maybe we should be trying to educate people on respecting rights, instead of nanny state-ism.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This has gotten interesting.
I am seeing some really good opinions on both sides of this argument. It has become an argument yet civil.
Again....perception to what is right or wrong.

Lol, as one that tends to get people "fired up" in threads, I honestly try to stay civil.... but once someone throws their "crazy" in my direction, I can't help myself. But just for the record, I NEVER start it, ha ha ha.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Respectfully disagree. How is this: View attachment 22588 anything like this: View attachment 22589?

He didnt say that. He said that the rifle you pictured is equivalent to this:View attachment 22590

 

[Old_grunt]

Times do change, that's for certain. Would I carry an AR into a restaurant? No, don't have one, but no is still the answer for carrying my M1 Garand, into a restaurant. Not a good idea. Now, having said that, I'll relate a story, that happened in the late 1970s, in the same town, at about the same time of year. This is a first person account, so I am not passing second hand info. A local bar I frequented, the Beer Garden, was having a Halloween costume party. A friend of mine and I decided to go. He dressed in flying coveralls, flying jacket, leather flying helmet, with goggles and carried a broken wooden airplane propeller. I, on the other hand, dressed as a WWII dogface, in WWII Army fatigues, boots, steel pot, ammo belt (8 clips, 1 per pocket), grease paint on my face & neck and was accompanied by a M1 Garand. I walked the 10-12 blocks to the bar, with the rifle slung on my right shoulder. I was passed by a few strollers and several cars, enroute. When I got to the Beer Garden, I realized that I'd forgotten to remove the firing pin, from the bolt, which I did, reassembled the rifle and asked the owner if he'd mind stashing it behind the bar, for the evening. He asked if it was loaded and when I told him that it wasn't and that I'd removed the firing pin, he said sure and did as I asked. Not a single on duty LEO showed up and I was not questioned by anyone in the bar about the rifle, even though some did ask if my ammo belt had ammo in it. (it did) People that knew me, back then, weren't worried about it. When the bar closed at 0300, I put the firing pin back in the bolt and after reassembling the rifle, walked home. Not one LEO showed up, while I was at the bar, enroute to or from the bar. Given the level of angst, today, I'd choose a different costume, for sure.

By the way, my friend's reply when asked if the propeller he was carrying was real, his reply was, "No, it's just a prop!"

Times have changed, along with perceptions.

 

[Old_grunt]

Respectfully disagree. How is this: View attachment 22588 anything like this: View attachment 22589?

Guy with the rifle has it slung in ready carry. Muzzle should, imo, be pointing up and over the left shoulder for nonaggressive carry.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If the fear of potential future actions by a misguided and tyrannical legislature are so paralyzing that it prevents the exercise of a God-given right, then the tyrants have already won.

???? what are these rights ????
I'm a believer, but don't believe that phrase. There are no religious component to rights.

 

[stephen87]

That's not the "low ready" for a rifle, that's "slung."

Sorry, misread your post. Still though, how is having a rifle slung any less comparable to having a handgun holstered. it's carried properly, it is not displayed in a threatening manner, other than being present, so the LEO should have made contact, walked away.

 

[bwframe]

The carrier has no control of the firing components all the while the muzzle is pointing at ???

 

[Kutnupe14]

It wasn't very long ago that kids could walk down Broadway in Gary with a .22 or a shotgun, and NO ONE called the police.
We keep taking steps back so that we don't "offend" anyone and lose our rights.
And we keep taking steps back.
If you went back 60 years and told them all the rules going on now, people would laugh at you.
By giving in, it has become the new normal.
So what the heck, we'll all CC a pistol.
Till even that becomes "odd".

That would be 1953. You sure about that?

For reference Brown v Board was 1954.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sorry, misread your post. Still though, how is having a rifle slung any less comparable to having a handgun holstered. it's carried properly, it is not displayed in a threatening manner, other than being present, so the LEO should have made contact, walked away.

Does the guy with a rifle have a round chambered?

 

[ilikeguns]

Well...... You got what you wanted. Except the cool video showing how BA you are. Too bad that didn't work out for you , probably could have upped the rating on your YouTube channel.

 

[actaeon277]

That would be 1953. You sure about that?

For reference Brown v Board was 1954.

I would argue that is an expansion of rights, or restoration of rights to a group.
Would you then argue that the races have the right to mix, but you do not want to lose the right, so they shouldn't?

 

[stephen87]

I disagree. Perhaps we should look at this from the practical standpoint. What is the best way to carry a rifle for transport. Easy right? Slung. What's the best way to car a handgun for transport? Easy again. Holstered.
Now let's talk transitioning. Is it quicker to deploy a rifle or handgun from the "carry" slung/holstered position? Handgun, 9 out of 10 times. How does one match or exceed the speed of deployment, of a handgun, with a rifle? Carrying at the "low ready."

So in your eyes, is it okay to meet an OCer, who has a handgun in the holster, with a rifle at the low ready position?

How many people have you seen carrying at the "low ready," and would you be alarmed if someone walked through the door, of any place you were present, doing such?

Obviously someone carrying a handgun OR a rifle at the low ready would, deservedly, draw my attention along with everyone else on this forum, but what's that have to do with a rifle slung over the shoulder and two handguns in a holster?

Saying "a gun, is a gun, is a gun" as if all are created equally for similar purposes is blantantly false.

What is a gun's purpose?

Self defense is something NONE of us should politicize. As gunowners we should recognize, that If ever employed, at the very least we will possibly have to injure somebody.

Agreed. But it is what it is. We all, as gun owners and carriers, know why we carry a gun. 90% of us will say the same thing, self defense.

We should embrace the fact that we, that are lucky enough to have "good" laws, can legally carry a rifle in time where the need legitimately arises and defend ourselves and our families.

Why should I have to wait for the need to arise to be able to carry a rifle? When will I know? Will there be a newspaper article? Will there be an announcement on the tv? Will you call me? There is always a need to defend ourselves. If I knew when I would need my firearm, I wouldn't need it because I would just avoid the situation.

We should not make light of the responsibility entrusted to us by attempting to make statements or force those that are uncomfortable with our stances to simply "put up with it 'cause it's my right."

I do many things that make people uncomfortable. Guess what, not illegal, can't do a thing about it. I WILL NOT put my rights on the back burner because it makes YOU uncomfortable or anyone else. What's next? Should I not OC because it makes people uncomfortable? Will I have to keep my comments to myself because you don't agree with it? Can I not wear a cross on a chain around my neck because it makes you uncomfortable? Where does it end? You being comfortable is not related to my rights at all. If you believe it is, maybe you should look in the mirror.

Should the need ever come, you can trust there will be many that see the error in their beliefs. But we won't change any opinions if they vote our rights away prior to.
So my advice, keep your rifles out of sight of everyday America, but keep it oiled and polished for when you actually do need it. You'll make a better statement.

You know when they'll see the error in their beliefs? When it's too late. And if it's too late, that means that someone needed someone with a firearm, assuming we are still talking about the RKBA. If I am there and they see the error, I'm already disarmed. Remember? You were uncomfortable and made me disarm, so now I need the firearm and I don't have it.



**Disclaimer:: This was not pointed at you specifically, but you generally.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Yet you have no problem speculating that a fellow gun owner is antigun because he questions another's controversial action?

Uggghh. Please show me where I said a gun owner is antigun. Big difference between a simile and stating someone IS something.

 

[stephen87]

Does the guy with a rifle have a round chambered?

Do you carry with a round chambered?

 

[churchmouse]

Do you carry with a round chambered?

I do. Not sure what that has to do with the OP but I see where you are going with this.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I would argue that is an expansion of rights, or restoration of rights to a group.
Would you then argue that the races have the right to mix, but you do not want to lose the right, so they shouldn't?

I'll be honest, I'm not following. You implied that 60 years ago people would laugh at the rules we currently endure; 60 years being 1953. I gave you Brown V Board because at 1954, it's one year after your 60 year statement, meaning that in 1953 the rule which upheld segregation, was hardly a laughing matter at all, and in fact, quite serious.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Do you carry with a round chambered?

Personally, I carry Condition butterscotch.

Is it time to bring out the yet?