This is going to pi$$ off a lot of people, but

[actaeon277]

WOW!! Just wow!! if we have a vote, I vote for this! At least from the back that is one sexy chick!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiD2aCb5-5g

 

[88E30M50]

Serious question time. What is the goal of the OC movement?

For me, the goal is simple. I would love to see the day when good people with guns is seen as the answer, instead of being the problem. I don't know if we can get there though, as the image of one non-threatening person carrying a gun is washed away by the thousands of images served up by the liberal media trying to convince people of how bad guns are.

I'd love to see us get to the point illustrated by the Israeli woman. Sure, they got to the point of that woman walking along without being accosted by police in different ways than we will be able to. The did it through mandatory military service, training and a commonly accepted threat.

The majority of folks in the US don't believe there is a threat. At least, no threat that cannot be handled by the local police. Most people in the US have never put on a military or police uniform. Most people in the US have never owned a gun. Getting these people to accept the sight of someone carrying a long gun in public will be tough. It's too far outside of their idea of what is right to just embrace it at first sight.

My concern with the 'in your face' method is that few people come away with the right lesson. Most will see a person with a long arm being harassed or arrested and will assume that the police are doing their job of protecting them and that the person with the gun was a nutjob. They will not see the person later released and the weapon returned. All they saw was a man with a rifle being taken off the streets.

 

[sullivmt2015]

This is a very good point and I think we should all be careful about these things. Just because it is legal does not mean it is the right thing to do. I carry a handgun for personal protection, not to prove a point just because I can. I'm happy to see that most people agree with this.

 

[actaeon277]

Serious question time. What is the goal of the OC movement? If the statement you are making is true, don't we stand to loose much more than we can gain?

I just got back from Fort Wayne with my family. Went to Fort Wayne Pediatrics with a sick kid, the pharmacy, Chipotle, and drove through McD's. Armed the whoe time (CC) with not a second glance of course. Heck, I was carrying a Colt 1911 with two spare mags. I did not consider myself under-armed. Nor was I uncomfortable.

I'd say the state of gun rights are pretty darn good right now. With my two licenses (Indiana and Utah) I can carry in most states and do not feel overly bourdoned by gun laws. With the exception of the NFA paperwork crap, I can walk into a gun store and buy whatever I can afford and walk out with it.

So, here in Indiana, what are we really trying to gain? Illinois and Cali I totally understand. Any state that still has some form of an AWB or lack of decent carry laws I also understand. But in Indiana?

I didn't know there was a movement.
If there is, I'm not part of it.
I OC or CC.
It is legal.
I do not need a reason anymore than I need a reason why I drove a car or a truck today.
I do not go around committing crimes and ruining peoples lives.
I obey the law.
If someone asks, I try to provide an intelligent answer.
If someone attempts to inform me of the law, or their version of it, I correct them with correct information. I quote a place to look. I cannot make them change their mind.
If I make them uncomfortable, too bad. There is no "uncomforable" clause in the Constitution, nor can I find it in the IC. I ask if they can ask Carnies to leave, because they make them nervous.
Therefore, there is no movement. There is no statement.
I just follow the law, and carry.


A note I always seem to be trying to make is, "CCing is not invisible".
You will be found out sooner or later, and someone will say something.
If you are unprepared, you will have problems.

 

[Compuvette]

I didn't know there was a movement.
If there is, I'm not part of it.
I OC or CC.
It is legal.
I do not need a reason anymore than I need a reason why I drove a car or a truck today.
I do not go around committing crimes and ruining peoples lives.
I obey the law.
If someone asks, I try to provide an intelligent answer.
If someone attempts to inform me of the law, or their version of it, I correct them with correct information. I quote a place to look. I cannot make them change their mind.
If I make them uncomfortable, too bad. There is no "uncomforable" clause in the Constitution, nor can I find it in the IC. I ask if they can ask Carnies to leave, because they make them nervous.
Therefore, there is no movement. There is no statement.
I just follow the law, and carry.


A note I always seem to be trying to make is, "CCing is not invisible".
You will be found out sooner or later, and someone will say something.
If you are unprepared, you will have problems.

I corrected myself lower down. I was referring to the desire to start open carrying long arms. I see that pretty much only as "in your face" activism. Personally I see more of a chance of loss of rights than forward movement.

 

[Burnsy]

I corrected myself lower down. I was referring to the desire to start open carrying long arms. I see that pretty much only as "in your face" activism. Personally I see more of a chance of loss of rights than forward movement.

By this logic if me and 5 friends who open carry hand guns want to go to lunch we are "in your face" and in order to keep our right we should either CC or not hang out.

So the best way to keep a right is to pretend one does not have it and hope nobody notices?

 

[88E30M50]

By this logic if me and 5 friends who open carry hand guns want to go to lunch we are "in your face" and in order to keep our right we should either CC or not hang out.

So the best way to keep a right is to pretend one does not have it and hope nobody notices?

First, we are talking about the OC of long arms, not handguns. My understanding is that the two viewpoints being discussed is to introduce long arm OC by slowly indoctrinating the public vs. the 'in your face' idea of OCing a long arm because it's my right and if you don't like it you can KMA. I did not see much in the way of stepping back from our rights in the 15 plus pages of this thread.

If you read back through this thread, the idea of you and 5 friends OCing your ARs at lunch is actually taking the measured approach and not the 'in your face' approach. The thought is that if people start by seeing non-threatening carry, they will gradually become acclimated to the idea of long arm OC. A single person OCing an AR right now sets off all sorts of alarms in the minds of sheep. I don't think you'd get the same reaction if there were 6 of you. There is not much of a precedent set for 6 guys with long arms going to lunch, then shooting up the place.

When a person sees one man with a long arm in public, they unfortunately have a reference point to help them understand what they are seeing. They don't need to think about what they see, they just react to what they know. Sadly, what they know is that a single man carrying a long arm might be nuts and just about to start shooting.

Seeing 6 guys, decently dressed, with long arms makes them think. There is no analog for that, so they have to dust off the brain and try to figure out what they are seeing. Most likely, they will come to the conclusion that it's either a bunch of cops or a bunch of guys pushing social convention.

 

[Kagnew]

There are threads running around talking about our gun rights and if we don't exercise them we will lose them. I want to know what you consider the threshold that should not be crossed. Most of us know we can openly carry a long arm. BUT where does the carrying of one cross the line?

Examples: I can legally sit at the Four Freedoms monument on the riverfront in Evansville in a lawn chair, in camo with an AR loaded with a 30 round magazine and not be breaking the law. A person can march around Monument Circle in downtown Indy with a shot gun cradled in their arms. Someone can sit in a chair outside the mayor of their city's home with a scoped bolt action rifle and binoculars. All these things are legal. But should they be done? I don't think so. Why? Because they all probably cross the line with the public on what is perceived as a perfectly legal activity versus a threatening action.

Some of you will say this shouldn't be a problem. But I'll say right now that if things like this happen there will be a big problem. The public will soon scream for something to be done to outlaw those activities. The political pressure will be so intense eventually that our friends won't stand a chance at the polls and real anti's will be elected and laws WILL be enacted that will hurt.

+100!

 

[Burnsy]

First, we are talking about the OC of long arms, not handguns. My understanding is that the two viewpoints being discussed is to introduce long arm OC by slowly indoctrinating the public vs. the 'in your face' idea of OCing a long arm because it's my right and if you don't like it you can KMA. I did not see much in the way of stepping back from our rights in the 15 plus pages of this thread.

If you read back through this thread, the idea of you and 5 friends OCing your ARs at lunch is actually taking the measured approach and not the 'in your face' approach. The thought is that if people start by seeing non-threatening carry, they will gradually become acclimated to the idea of long arm OC. A single person OCing an AR right now sets off all sorts of alarms in the minds of sheep. I don't think you'd get the same reaction if there were 6 of you. There is not much of a precedent set for 6 guys with long arms going to lunch, then shooting up the place.

When a person sees one man with a long arm in public, they unfortunately have a reference point to help them understand what they are seeing. They don't need to think about what they see, they just react to what they know. Sadly, what they know is that a single man carrying a long arm might be nuts and just about to start shooting.

Seeing 6 guys, decently dressed, with long arms makes them think. There is no analog for that, so they have to dust off the brain and try to figure out what they are seeing. Most likely, they will come to the conclusion that it's either a bunch of cops or a bunch of guys pushing social convention.

Very well thought out. The point I was trying to make was that if excersising a right you have were to result in losing that right, you never had it to begin with.

The OP I was responding to felt that OCing long arms will create a negative image of long arms and therefore would result in the loss of the right to bear them. If that holds truth and the only way to keep that right is to not use it, the right didn't exist it to begin with.

 

[88E30M50]

Very well thought out. The point I was trying to make was that if excersising a right you have were to result in losing that right, you never had it to begin with.

The OP I was responding to felt that OCing long arms will create a negative image of long arms and therefore would result in the loss of the right to bear them. If that holds truth and the only way to keep that right is to not use it, the right didn't exist it to begin with.

I agree. An unexercised right is one that is easily taken away. I also think that an overexercised right can be in danger as well. Unfortunately, we have become a democracy and if enough people demand it, a law could be written to limit rights to a 'common sense level'. Our current government has no issues trampling rights if it is popular to do so.

There should be no such thing as an overexercised right. A right is a right, no matter how often that right is exercised. But we also live in a time of democratic rule. If enough people don't like what you are doing, they will ignore your right to do it and try to enact law that will keep you from doing it in the future.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Aside from the licensure issue, I see OC of handguns vs OC of long arms as a distinction without a difference. The sheeple are gonna react how the sheeple are gonna react. I'm not a psychologist. I make no claims to knowledge of the reactions of sheeple to any given stimulus.

And no, we are not a Democracy. We were, are, and ever shall be a Republic. Those in positions of authority can forget it. Those whose interests are served can obfuscate it. Those with neither knowledge nor imagination can ignore it, but ever shall it be true.

 

[mrortega]

I think the public, even those not particularly into guns, can recognize that carrying a hand gun is not that much out of the ordinary. They seem to be the best defensive weapon in stores, restaurants, etc. HOWEVER, a long gun looks out of place in those places. It is much more perceivable as an offensive weapon. Why does somebody need an AR with a range of 500-750 yards in a store. And the "banana clip" hanging out of it? Why would someone carry a shotgun into a store? Everybody "knows" one shot will clear everything off the shelves and kill everybody in the place. I think those perceptions of handguns being in the proper place and used for defense vs. long guns that can reach out or dump a lot of lead in a small place might be what would cross the line.

 

[Kagnew]

I think the public, even those not particularly into guns, can recognize that carrying a hand gun is not that much out of the ordinary. They seem to be the best defensive weapon in stores, restaurants, etc. HOWEVER, a long gun looks out of place in those places. It is much more perceivable as an offensive weapon. Why does somebody need an AR with a range of 500-750 yards in a store. And the "banana clip" hanging out of it? Why would someone carry a shotgun into a store? Everybody "knows" one shot will clear everything off the shelves and kill everybody in the place. I think those perceptions of handguns being in the proper place and used for defense vs. long guns that can reach out or dump a lot of lead in a small place might be what would cross the line.

As has been previously pointed out, this sort of thing serves no purpose other than to give the "anti-2A" crowd more ammunition.

 

[Burnsy]

I think the public, even those not particularly into guns, can recognize that carrying a hand gun is not that much out of the ordinary. They seem to be the best defensive weapon in stores, restaurants, etc. HOWEVER, a long gun looks out of place in those places. It is much more perceivable as an offensive weapon. Why does somebody need an AR with a range of 500-750 yards in a store. And the "banana clip" hanging out of it? Why would someone carry a shotgun into a store? Everybody "knows" one shot will clear everything off the shelves and kill everybody in the place. I think those perceptions of handguns being in the proper place and used for defense vs. long guns that can reach out or dump a lot of lead in a small place might be what would cross the line.

Well the thing about it is I can agree that the general public and certainly the anti's currently view someone walking into a store with a shotgun slung on their back a good bit out of place when compared to say me walking into the same store OCing my pistol.

The problem with it though is that doesn't really make a lot of sense. If someone walks in lets, call him Bob number 1 and does shopping with my gun on his hip and this is accepted as perfectly fine behavior and mister shotty bob number 2 is a problem it can be sort of backwards.

Let’s give bob number 2 my neighbors shotgun. It's a 12 gauge pump that holds 3 shells counting the one in the chamber. The thought process is that they are afraid that bob number 2 is going to do something stupid because he is a probably a criminal or is about to become one since he has a long gun on his back for the sole purpose of vaporizing the entire store (because clearly three 12 gauge shells is all one needs to go on a spree one tug on the trigger and a mushroom could is going to appear). They all freak out and start the MWAG calls.

Now Bob number 1 walks into the same store OC a G21 so 12+1. Many of you on this board also carry and extra mag, so let’s say bob #1 is also CCing an extra mag on his left side under his untucked shirt. So good ole #1 has 25 45ACP rounds on him, many of you also carry a BUG. So let’s give bob my 380 LCP to ankle carry in case he gets knocked down and stupidly loses control of his Glock. The LCP is 6+1 so now we are up to 32 rounds.

Let’s say like me and many of us here Bob #1 has a wife that carries. Many women love to carry S&W J-frames and it's in her purse because no matter what Bob #1 does or say he cannot make her properly carry the damned thing...wait that's me. Anyway so she has 5. So between the two of them they are walking into random store carrying 37 rounds, if the Glock were a 9mm it would be an even higher round count. The people around them (hopefully) look at the two of them, notice that one is carrying are firearm and think to themselves, nothing to see here, just a couple shopping.

If the Glock is also concealed they think nothing at all.
But one three round shot gun and THAT’S a problem… I just can’t get my head around the if I can’t see it, it doesn’t exist mentality…… If the store in question is Walmart, the guy probably bought the thing there and is bringing it back for one reason or another. If it’s on his or her back or covered in a case it doesn’t suddenly cease to be a shotgun.

I understand why people carry hand guns, it's impractical to carry around a long gun. I understand the general public’s current view of someone walking around with a long gun, I just don’t understand why…

 

[Desdinova]

So between the two of them they are walking into random store carrying 37 rounds, if the Glock were a 9mm it would be an even higher round count. They people around the (hopefully) look at the two of them, notice that one is carrying are firearm and think to themselves, nothing to see here, just a couple shopping.

If the Glock is also concealed they think nothing at all.
But one three round shot gun and THAT’S a problem… I just can’t get my head around the if I can’t see it, it doesn’t exist mentality……not to mention OMG a shotgun! If the store in question is Walmart, the guy probably bought the thing there and is bringing it back for one reason or another. If it’s on his or her back or covered in a case it doesn’t suddenly cease to be a shotgun.

I understand the general public’s current view of someone walking around with a long gun, I just don’t understand why…

Burnsy, if sheeple thought logically about things... they wouldn't be sheeple anymore.



As many have pointed out, I think this is mostly a matter of perception. Most people, even those with little to no experience with firearms, tend to see handguns are defensive weapons, and long guns as offensive weapons. I think it would be a pretty common reaction to see a guy walk into a store with a rifle or shotgun on their back and have your first thought be "something bad is about to happen" rather than "he is exercising his rights."

I'm not saying that perception is correct or just, I'm simply saying that if you took a poll of 100 average citizens, that is most likely what they would think.

As society has progressed from one where a majority of people owned guns, hunted, and taught their children how to handle firearms to the current "United States of American Idol" to quote one of my favorite comedians, the perception of those with guns has shifted from it being a natural part of life in America to them automatically being perceived as some kind of threat to others.

The constant news coverage of shootings and the quoting of murder statistics like baseball scores plays into this by keeping the dangers of guns in the forefront of sheeple minds and drowning out anything positive about owning firearms. Even when a legally armed citizen uses their weapon to save lives in a robbery or something similar, it comes out as "Hey, this gun-packing nutball shot somebody."

It's a sign of the world we live in that anyone who openly exercises their right to bear arms is going to be look at as a source of danger to those around them. In this modern world of political correctness, conformity, and constant media bombardment, the viewpoint of the majority of our population has been so narrowed that everything they see and hear comes down to one simple fact: if you're not a member of the herd, then you're a threat.

 

[Roadie]

Well the thing about it is I can agree that the general public and certainly the anti's currently view someone walking into a store with a shotgun slung on their back a good bit out of place when compared to say me walking into the same store OCing my pistol.

The problem with it though is that doesn't really make a lot of sense. If someone walks in lets, call him Bob number 1 and does shopping with my gun on his hip and this is accepted as perfectly fine behavior and mister shotty bob number 2 is a problem it can be sort of backwards.

Let’s give bob number 2 my neighbors shotgun. It's a 12 gauge pump that holds 3 shells counting the one in the chamber. The thought process is that they are afraid that bob number 2 is going to do something stupid because he is a probably a criminal or is about to become one since he has a long gun on his back for the sole purpose of vaporizing the entire store (because clearly three 12 gauge shells is all one needs to go on a spree one tug on the trigger and a mushroom could is going to appear). They all freak out and start the MWAG calls.

Now Bob number 1 walks into the same store OC a G21 so 12+1. Many of you on this board also carry and extra mag, so let’s say bob #1 is also CCing an extra mag on his left side under his untucked shirt. So good ole #1 has 25 45ACP rounds on him, many of you also carry a BUG. So let’s give bob my 380 LCP to ankle carry in case he gets knocked down and stupidly loses control of his Glock. The LCP is 6+1 so now we are up to 32 rounds.

Let’s say like me and many of us here Bob #1 has a wife that carries. Many women love to carry S&W J-frames and it's in her purse because no matter what Bob #1 does or say he cannot make her properly carry the damned thing...wait that's me. Anyway so she has 5. So between the two of them they are walking into random store carrying 37 rounds, if the Glock were a 9mm it would be an even higher round count. The people around them (hopefully) look at the two of them, notice that one is carrying are firearm and think to themselves, nothing to see here, just a couple shopping.

If the Glock is also concealed they think nothing at all.
But one three round shot gun and THAT’S a problem… I just can’t get my head around the if I can’t see it, it doesn’t exist mentality…… If the store in question is Walmart, the guy probably bought the thing there and is bringing it back for one reason or another. If it’s on his or her back or covered in a case it doesn’t suddenly cease to be a shotgun.

I understand why people carry hand guns, it's impractical to carry around a long gun. I understand the general public’s current view of someone walking around with a long gun, I just don’t understand why…

Agreed, especially the part in RED. How many times have we heard stories of OCers being told "If you could just cover it, that would be great.."

It's still THERE, but it's OK because it's COVERED?