I agree. Unfortunately your words in many cases fall on deaf ears. We have in society today a large amount of people who think their rights are all that matter. You know, "I'm gonna do what I want, when I want, wherever I want and screw anyone who doesn't like it." Kinda reminds me of a 16 year old high school kid who thinks they're all grown up and should be able to do anything they please. The fact of the matter is we have rules in place for a reason. If everyone were considerate of everyone else we wouldn't need any rules or laws at all. But sadly that isn't the case. And we all are restricted by the chains of society. Don't think so??? Wouldn't you like to have a select fire AR? Buy a gun, some parts, and convert one........No? Why not? Are you chained by society's rules? Guess that makes you a submissive subject of the US government doesn't it? Got somewhere to go in a hurry? Running late? Ignore the speed limit, the stop signs and lights. Why should you have to submit yourself to rules. After all you're more important than anyone else so tell them to get out of your way. You have the right to get where you're going as fast as possible. So a guy with a handgun you can see (or the one you can't), doesn't bother you, but the rifle does? I'm just trying to figure out where the definitive line of "dangerous" is when the only discernible factor we have to judge the individual is the firearm we can see.
Now, I know what you're going to say. You can't compare open carry to activities that are against the law. I realize that. I'm just trying to illustrate the fact that you are bound by rules and can't do anything you want no matter how much you may want to. And when you jump up, puff out your chest and say "I'm going to do whatever I want!" at the exclusion of someone else's rights you become a perfect example of the very reason those rules exist in the first place. And you sound like the very liberals you claim to protest.
This doesn't bother me. You can handle a firearm safely.
I owe nothing to no one. Not you, not my fellow man, not even my husband, save but what my God asks of me. There is no mandate to honor society as a living, breathing organic entity. It's a fabricated construct used by people who want to squelch individualism.
Now, I know what you're going to say. You can't compare open carry to activities that are against the law. I realize that. I'm just trying to illustrate the fact that you are bound by rules and can't do anything you want no matter how much you may want to. And when you jump up, puff out your chest and say "I'm going to do whatever I want!" at the exclusion of someone else's rights you become a perfect example of the very reason those rules exist in the first place. And you sound like the very liberals you claim to protest.
I don't carry for that reason. I carry to be able to protect myself. I can't see who is trustworthy and who is not. I expect nothing more than I am willing to give: the benefit of the doubt. In the absence of any indication that I am up to no good, why should anyone care? And if his sole reason for thinking I am a threat is that I carry a firearm, so bet it. Again, I don't make my life choices to make other people feel better about their insecurities.
Translation: I dont want to be labeled anything but fully supportive of carry rights, so I'll throw this little bit of lip service out there. But I can't do it without projecting my own insecurities and ASSumptions about people who open carry into the argument.
I don't know. Record numbers of women owning and obtaining permission slips to carry. Record firearms sales. Failed attempts at national legislation aimed to restrict purchasing power. If you think Starbucks and Chipotle are representative of our rights, you need to re-think. Those are private businesses who have ALWAYS had the power to restrict our carry on their property. We aren't any worse off.
Neither of those make law. And most of the groups that fall under one of those categories are already against us. What would change?
Why would I have to go anywhere else? CC is still an option. I have used it when it served my purpose. I could also choose not to carry if the reason for my patronage at that establishment were greater than my need/desire to carry. Again, it's a private business. Nothing really changes.
Some days I do that too. Is that a bad thing?
We can look at the rights we've gained due to activism as well. And FTR, it's not about firearms. It's about control. When the firearms are bested, they'll be coming at us for our religion. And they'll seek to abolish anything other than state-sponsored education.
It could happen. I doubt the businesses are motivated to do so. If they don't want the hassle, they can simply ignore the issue. Taking the stand you have suggested will be sure to lose them some money. People respond with their dollars. Ask Chick-Fil-A.
I am a living, breathing example of public relations every day. What are you doing to make firearms normative in the eyes of the public?
Because I don't make it a habit to approach people who might be afraid of the gun on my hip with a gun on my hip. I don't presume to know what makes a person tick. Hopefully the simple fact that I am eating lunch or grocery shopping with my children will suffice to get the same message across.
Then don't listen. If we had demanded the free exercise of our rights years ago instead of capitulating with compromise, we might not have to be having this conversation.
You didn't give up any rights. You are, however, suggesting that others should exercise their rights how you deem fit, and then in the next sentence stating you shouldn't have to exercise your First Amendment rights how others deem fit. 
Double standard maybe?I do wonder however why the Secret Service doesn't carry open. You'd think they of all people would want to put on an impressive display considering they're protecting the President. Hmmmmmm.......Have to ponder that one. Perhaps they think such a display would be a bad public relations move. Might get the rest of us common people thinking it was OK for us too.
I really dislike how many of us on here use the term liberal instead of leftist. Some really need to look up the term liberal and what it actually means. I know one thing; it doesn't mean what a lot of you think it does.You seem to be contradicting yourself there.
I don't like being criticized for my opinion either, but it happens every day.
Again? Please take the OC/CC debate to the thread I linked. If you have so much more knowledge on the subject and can prove the argument wrong, please post in that thread. I would very much like to read your thoughts, seriously.
I know you think RKBA should be on your terms. You stand up for rights right up to the point you don't.
Bleh, that article is hogwash. By the same token, the OCT morons at Chipotle's unquestionably were there to 'make a political statement' when posing for pics inside Chipotles with loaded firearms, hand on the pistol grip, rifle at the 'ready' position. They were NOT 'just stopping by to eat', that's total
IF the OCT yabos were 'just going to eat after their event', why weren't those rifles cased (not slung over the shoulder)? Or simply left in the vehicle and a holstered handgun carried into Chipotle's? Those idiots got kicked out of Chipotle's, similar 'point making' groups have been kicked out of Starbucks, Cracker Barrel, Jack In The Box and who knows where else (yet) and should be. Nonsense rhetoric notwithstanding.
Any responsible person think handgunners should walk into some establishment with guns in hand, or dangling from a lanyard on the wrist, claiming "It's properly holstered"? No. CC or OC, ya keep that firearm holstered or cased, period. That's 'good stewardship'. Anything else is a 'political stunt' no matter how much someone claims otherwise. Ya got money for ammo and cleaning supplies, ya got the funds for a holster or scabbard.
All those OCT loons are really doing is alienating the very people that originally supported them, pushing the 'neutral' people to the anti-gun 'side', and bolstering the rhetoric of the rabid anti-gunners. The OCT guys and their ilk are not friends of firearms enthusiasts, nor are any similar groups. They're NO different than Watts or Bloomberg.
