Open carry firearms.. Our 2nd amendment right!!

[sealybobo]

How come no one carries openly? We were talking about this at deer camp this weekend. If its legal, I dare you to start wearing your side arm out in public. Let us know how that works out for you.

As soon as I'm sure it is legal, I will be wearing my side arm openly. But I won't be the first. Will you?

As a practical matter, it wouldn't work very well for me. I have a sports car and wearing my Browning Hi-Power on my hip wouldn't be good for me or my car seat. That's leaving aside that I have to go into Washington, DC most days and go through a metal detector. So, I have cross-jurisdictional issues, government building issues, police issues....lol, car issues etc.

If I were just out in public and didn't have those issues would I open carry?

I think that I would worry that I would want to go someplace (like a bar) where you can't have a firearm. Then, what would I do with it? So, it seems inconvenient. I'm all about convenience too. I used to use a money clip, but I had a project in the US Supreme Court and I got tired of having to unclip the cash to get through the metal detector so I stopped using a money clip....lol. A pistol is a lot bigger headache than a money clip.

I've only rarely wished I had a pistol and on half of those occasions, it's probably a good thing I didn't. It only would have made a bad problem worse.

Ok, why isn't ANYONE carrying? You know thousands would if they thought they could get away with it. All my buddies would. Maybe not all the time, but whenever and for whatever reason. But NO ONE is trying it.

My buddies with CCW's say there may be other laws that you are breaking, or you'll get harrassed and the cops called wherever you go. I'd seriously like to know for sure. But even if you ask a cop, who knows if the rules very city to city, etc.

 

[sealybobo]

How come no one carries openly? We were talking about this at deer camp this weekend. If its legal, I dare you to start wearing your side arm out in public. Let us know how that works out for you.

As soon as I'm sure it is legal, I will be wearing my side arm openly. But I won't be the first. Will you?

I've done it when the weather is hot. But overall people don't do it because it's stupid.

I do when I'm out for a walk, normally down along the river. Not when we are going to a store or any thing of course.

Almost have the local police chief convinced to let me fire a few rounds from one of their M16's up at the local Rod and Gun some day.

That should bring back some memories.

That's cool if you do. I'll ask a few more people before trying it. I know my cop buddy will try to deter me.

And I know he and the rest of law enforcement does not want this getting around.

 

[JD_2B]

How come no one carries openly? We were talking about this at deer camp this weekend. If its legal, I dare you to start wearing your side arm out in public. Let us know how that works out for you.

As soon as I'm sure it is legal, I will be wearing my side arm openly. But I won't be the first. Will you?

As a practical matter, it wouldn't work very well for me. I have a sports car and wearing my Browning Hi-Power on my hip wouldn't be good for me or my car seat. That's leaving aside that I have to go into Washington, DC most days and go through a metal detector. So, I have cross-jurisdictional issues, government building issues, police issues....lol, car issues etc.

If I were just out in public and didn't have those issues would I open carry?

I think that I would worry that I would want to go someplace (like a bar) where you can't have a firearm. Then, what would I do with it? So, it seems inconvenient. I'm all about convenience too. I used to use a money clip, but I had a project in the US Supreme Court and I got tired of having to unclip the cash to get through the metal detector so I stopped using a money clip....lol. A pistol is a lot bigger headache than a money clip.

I've only rarely wished I had a pistol and on half of those occasions, it's probably a good thing I didn't. It only would have made a bad problem worse.

Ok, why isn't ANYONE carrying? You know thousands would if they thought they could get away with it. All my buddies would. Maybe not all the time, but whenever and for whatever reason. But NO ONE is trying it.

My buddies with CCW's say there may be other laws that you are breaking, or you'll get harrassed and the cops called wherever you go. I'd seriously like to know for sure. But even if you ask a cop, who knows if the rules very city to city, etc.

People can in Texas.. Apparently you ignored my post.

 

[FLS_Medic]

In response to the original question, is there the imminent threat of invasion that I am unaware of? You suggest that everyone has the right to carry a weapon in plain view. Now I work as a Paramedic and I can honestly say that the gun violence problem will skyrocket. Half the reason we don't get retaliatory shootings immediately is because the other team didn't have guns with them. You want to deregulate the system to allow anyone to open carry a weapon without a permit. All that does is create more violent crime because everyone now has the means readily available to utilize deadly force. The 2nd Amendment like the rest of the constitution is a living document. We have to be able to adapt to the current temperature of our time. Allowing everyone to carry a weapon until they commit an act that would cause us to remove them is wreck-less and irresponsible. The 2nd Amendment calls for a well regulated militia in the interest of national defense. We have several branches of military service that I think all can agree have done an excellent job in securing our borders. We do not need hate groups, gangs, and other criminals carrying in public. Also take the time to remember that we only find out someone is a criminal when they slip up and are caught. We no longer have a need for a well regulated militia we are not involved in an armed conflict on the home front. Therefore there is no need for citizens to run around carrying handguns. More to the point, we have an armed civil service to settle disputes amongst ourselves so let us not forget the police forces. It seems to me unlikely that you are carrying these weapons in the interest of hunting game.

 

[Contumacious]

Half the reason we don't get retaliatory shootings immediately is because the other team didn't have guns with them.

You sir are correct.

The Victims Of The Virginia Tech Massacre would have been alive today had the University not interfered with their ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWwCCf-W7VI"]VICTIMS OF THE FASCISTS GUN GRABBERS[/ame]

 

[Ringel05]

In response to the original question, is there the imminent threat of invasion that I am unaware of? You suggest that everyone has the right to carry a weapon in plain view. Now I work as a Paramedic and I can honestly say that the gun violence problem will skyrocket. Half the reason we don't get retaliatory shootings immediately is because the other team didn't have guns with them. You want to deregulate the system to allow anyone to open carry a weapon without a permit. All that does is create more violent crime because everyone now has the means readily available to utilize deadly force. The 2nd Amendment like the rest of the constitution is a living document. We have to be able to adapt to the current temperature of our time. Allowing everyone to carry a weapon until they commit an act that would cause us to remove them is wreck-less and irresponsible. The 2nd Amendment calls for a well regulated militia in the interest of national defense. We have several branches of military service that I think all can agree have done an excellent job in securing our borders. We do not need hate groups, gangs, and other criminals carrying in public. Also take the time to remember that we only find out someone is a criminal when they slip up and are caught. We no longer have a need for a well regulated militia we are not involved in an armed conflict on the home front. Therefore there is no need for citizens to run around carrying handguns. More to the point, we have an armed civil service to settle disputes amongst ourselves so let us not forget the police forces. It seems to me unlikely that you are carrying these weapons in the interest of hunting game.

Number one you're wrong about the violence factor. FBI just released last years violent crime stats. Those stats in conjunction with the exponential increase in private gun ownership, open carry and concealed carry blows your premise away. Since 1991 the violent crime rates have dropped by almost 45% while the carry numbers have increased. Those stats also show areas that have the most restrictive gun laws also have the highest rates of violent crime.
You're simply blowing out your ass when it come to the Second Amendment, especially when you address it as a living document simply to push your misplaced agenda on everyone else despite the facts.
Easy question. Does the original Constitution and Bill of Rights give us any rights?

 

[Contumacious]

Easy question. Does the original Constitution and Bill of Rights give us any rights?

No, it doesn't.

Every time you take a shit without asking a bureaucrat for permission you break the law.

.

 

[Missourian]

In response to the original question, is there the imminent threat of invasion that I am unaware of? You suggest that everyone has the right to carry a weapon in plain view. Now I work as a Paramedic and I can honestly say that the gun violence problem will skyrocket. Half the reason we don't get retaliatory shootings immediately is because the other team didn't have guns with them. You want to deregulate the system to allow anyone to open carry a weapon without a permit. All that does is create more violent crime because everyone now has the means readily available to utilize deadly force. The 2nd Amendment like the rest of the constitution is a living document. We have to be able to adapt to the current temperature of our time. Allowing everyone to carry a weapon until they commit an act that would cause us to remove them is wreck-less and irresponsible. The 2nd Amendment calls for a well regulated militia in the interest of national defense. We have several branches of military service that I think all can agree have done an excellent job in securing our borders. We do not need hate groups, gangs, and other criminals carrying in public. Also take the time to remember that we only find out someone is a criminal when they slip up and are caught. We no longer have a need for a well regulated militia we are not involved in an armed conflict on the home front. Therefore there is no need for citizens to run around carrying handguns. More to the point, we have an armed civil service to settle disputes amongst ourselves so let us not forget the police forces. It seems to me unlikely that you are carrying these weapons in the interest of hunting game.

Seems like I just posted this stuff last week...but it doesn't hurt to post it again.



Crime & Criminal Justice

More Guns, Less Crime (Again) in 2008

Gun Ownership at All-Time High, New FBI Report Shows​

Violent Crime at a 35-Year Low, Murder at a 43-Year Low​

Over the last two decades, many “gun control” laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive at the federal, state, and local levels.

Numbers of privately-owned guns and Right-to-Carry states have risen to all-time highs.

Every step of the way, “gun control” groups have predicted violent crime would increase.

Instead, the nation’s violent crime rate has been declining since 1991, and in 2008 fell to a 35-year low.

In the same period, the nation’s murder rate fell to a 43-year low.


Less “Gun Control”: The Brady Act’s handgun waiting period expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check System. Some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods or purchase permit requirements.

The federal “assault weapon” ban expired in 2004.

Since 1987, 30 states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws; there are now 40 RTC states, an all-time high.

All states have hunter protection laws, 48 have range protection laws, 48 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and Congress and 33 states have prohibited frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.1

Studies by or for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that “gun control” reduces crime.2


More Guns: There are 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States.3

The number of guns typically rises by about 4.5 million every year,4 though between 2007-2008, firearm transactions cleared by the National Criminal Instant Background Check rose 14 percent.5


Less Violent Crime: Since 1991, the nation’s violent crime rate has decreased 40 percent (murder, 45 percent; rape, 31 percent; robbery, 47 percent; and aggravated assault, 37 percent. From 2007-2008, the violent crime rate decreased 3 percent (murder, 5 percent; rape, 2 percent; robbery, 2 percent; and aggravated assault, 3 percent.)

States with Right-to-Carry laws have lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country: total violent crime by 31 percent, murder, 39 percent; robbery, 55 percent; and aggravated assault, 19 percent.

States that have the most restrictive gun control laws tend to have the highest ratios of robberies (confrontational violent crimes) to non-confrontational property crimes. 6


For footnotes and references visit NRA-ILA :: More Guns, Less Crime (Again) in 2008

Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.​

 

[Missourian]

In 2008, according to the FBI, police officers killed in the line of duty were reduced to a 50 year low:


Quote:


Fewer Police Officers Killed in Line of Duty in 2008

• Dec 31, 2008

This year is ending as one of the safest years for U.S. law enforcement in decades. The number of officers killed in the line of duty fell sharply this year when compared with 2007, and officers killed by gunfire reached a 50-year low. ​

Based on their analysis of preliminary data, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF) and Concerns of Police Survivors (C.O.P.S.) reported on Dec. 29 they found that 140 officers have died in the line of duty this year, a 23 percent reduction from the 2007 figure of 181. Other than 1996, when 139 officers were killed, 2008 represents the lowest year for officer fatalities since 1965, when 136 officers died in the line of duty.

This year's reduction includes a steep, 40 percent drop in the number of officers who were shot and killed, from 68 in 2007 to 41 in 2008. The last time firearms-related fatalities were this low was 1956, when there were 35 such deaths. The 2008 figure is 74 percent lower than the total for 1973, when a near-record high 156 law enforcement officers were shot and killed.


Fewer Police Officers Killed in Line of Duty in 2008 -- Occupational Health & Safety

 

[Missourian]

So much for that theory.

 

[Ringel05]

Easy question. Does the original Constitution and Bill of Rights give us any rights?

No, it doesn't.

Every time you take a shit without asking a bureaucrat for permission you break the law.

.

 

[Contumacious]

In 2008, according to the FBI, police officers killed in the line of duty were reduced to a 50 year low:

I appreciate the statistics, but we have an absolute right to life and to defend the same even if the statistics were the other way.

.

 

[Emma]

It is a right to bear arms.. Not a privilege that you "retain" only "if" you follow all the rules all the time, or one that you should lose AFTER you have paid your penance to society by spending time in jail.

I do not believe that carrying a weapon is a trait that people should have to get a permit for, because they have to hide the weapon somehow, based on the ever-growing laundry list of legislation that has very much infringed on our right to bear arms.

A well regulated militia means the GOVERNMENT, and in regulating that, THE PEOPLE, which the 2nd amendment states very clearly, have the right to bear arms.

I don't believe the framers were describing a collective right, but rather an individual one.

"Due process" does not include state or federal legislation that would make gun ownership, especially open carry, illegal or criminal.

What does 'due process' have to do with this?

Concealed carry is a different issue. At least with open carry, people know in advance that you are packing heat. To be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, and therefore be "sneaky".. that I agree- should continue to be a permitting designation.

I don't believe there should be CC permits.

To be clear- I am against parole. I think parole is a good program, but if we are going to release people for good behavior, work achieved, and other noble deeds, proving that the convicted prisoner is rehabilitated, then why even mess around with a parole system? Let them out and set them free. Its not fair to a parolee that they cannot have a gun.

Once they've served their time (and that is to include any parole or probation) then they should have all rights of citizenship restored.

It is also not fair that someone who has been served an order for protection of an accuser, should also suddenly lose their rights to carry a deadly weapon.. and people who are released and awaiting trial, also..
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"??

Orders of protection are as worthless as the paper on which they're written. If someone is stalking or otherwise threatening, they should be charged.

And as for the people who are mentally ill.. For God's sake, don't the sick ones have guardians? And the ones who aren't too sick to go to school, work, etc.. well guess what? If they want to go around killing everyone in sight in a fit of psychosis, they WILL find a way. Outlawing guns results in only the outlaws having guns.

Not all mentally ill people have guardians.

I do not care so much about the "unsafe" aspect of it. I realize this will result in more shootings and very likely a lot more accidental homicides..

But it will also DRASTICALLY reduce the amount of overall violent crime, as well as theft that occurs in this country on a daily basis..

You're contradicting yourself.

Who's going to even CONSIDER fucking with you, if you have a .45 pistol strapped to your side.

Cops suck. I say BUY A GUN.

Completely uncalled for. I think you owe those here an apology.

 

[Diuretic]

Who's going to even CONSIDER fucking with you, if you have a .45 pistol strapped to your side.

Cops suck. I say BUY A GUN.

Was this a post? I missed it

Who's going to even CONSIDER fucking with you, if you have a .45 pistol strapped to your side.

The bloke right behind you with a shotgun, that's who

 

[germanguy]

It is a right to bear arms.. Not a privilege that you "retain" only "if" you follow all the rules all the time, or one that you should lose AFTER you have paid your penance to society by spending time in jail.

I do not believe that carrying a weapon is a trait that people should have to get a permit for, because they have to hide the weapon somehow, based on the ever-growing laundry list of legislation that has very much infringed on our right to bear arms.

A well regulated militia means the GOVERNMENT, and in regulating that, THE PEOPLE, which the 2nd amendment states very clearly, have the right to bear arms.

"Due process" does not include state or federal legislation that would make gun ownership, especially open carry, illegal or criminal.

Concealed carry is a different issue. At least with open carry, people know in advance that you are packing heat. To be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, and therefore be "sneaky".. that I agree- should continue to be a permitting designation.

To be clear- I am against parole. I think parole is a good program, but if we are going to release people for good behavior, work achieved, and other noble deeds, proving that the convicted prisoner is rehabilitated, then why even mess around with a parole system? Let them out and set them free. Its not fair to a parolee that they cannot have a gun.

It is also not fair that someone who has been served an order for protection of an accuser, should also suddenly lose their rights to carry a deadly weapon.. and people who are released and awaiting trial, also..
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"??

And as for the people who are mentally ill.. For God's sake, don't the sick ones have guardians? And the ones who aren't too sick to go to school, work, etc.. well guess what? If they want to go around killing everyone in sight in a fit of psychosis, they WILL find a way. Outlawing guns results in only the outlaws having guns.

I do not care so much about the "unsafe" aspect of it. I realize this will result in more shootings and very likely a lot more accidental homicides..

But it will also DRASTICALLY reduce the amount of overall violent crime, as well as theft that occurs in this country on a daily basis..

Who's going to even CONSIDER fucking with you, if you have a .45 pistol strapped to your side.

Cops suck. I say BUY A GUN.

Hm ...
as a european, I never got it what it is the americans have with their guns.

A weapon is an instrument, used for hunting or killing / hurting someone else.

As I suppose not everybody has to hunt for his daily food, the urgent need for this is not there anymore.

Leaves the second cause to have it.

A. Policemen will need it, as he they encounter armed criminals.
B. Criminals will need it, as nothing underlines better your seriousness than a loaded gun at someones head.
Also - as the police is armed and probable victims as well, it might be useful to have.

As not everybody is belonging to A or B, it seems to be a good idea to have a firearm for everybody as well.

But there the problem starts:

A and B might be quicker, better trained in the use of it, or simply more ruthless.
This can get you into trouble.

Also other groups might encounter you in larger number, as C. the Military, D. Terrorists or even E. a foreign army.
A .45er pistol might look cool, but it might not impress C., D. or E. when coming on you with better arms while doing their job.

It might cause A. to call a SWAT - team, because he thought you belonged to B. and they shoot a lot of holes into you and check up later (less risk - hell - you were armed).
Or B. might try to shoot you in the back, as this is the most secure way to get your purse.
Or seeing your .45 come back with an UZI and perforate you.

As it is a law of nature that
- in the long run the bullet always wins against armour
- you will always encounter in the long run someone stronger/cleverer/ better armed

you might keep out of any trouble by not joining any arms race with the above groups.

I therefore sincerely think, that limiting the guns at least to groups A. and B. might ease a lot of situations.

But on the other hand I do not want to be the one who explains this to a whole nation armed up to the teeth

Therefore I just love the Swiss.
In Switzerland (militia army !) every militiaman had until recently his Storm Rifle and a load of 60 rounds ammunition at home. The ammunition was plombed and sealed.
I asked my friend, if there were no incidents.
"No" he said "it´s quite rare. It is strictly forbidden to break the seal."

regards
ze germanguy

 

[Contumacious]

I don't believe the framers were describing a collective right, but rather an individual one.

That is incorrect.

The federal government is about to infringe upon our right to bear arms.

The government does not want people armed when they are being told that there will a two year delay for emergency CAT Scans . Nor when they are being told that they have a right to see a doctor but it will take 1 year, or more, for an appointment.

So, as you can imagine, the bureaucrats do not want the people armed, while the federal government exercise the CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE to provide healthcare.

.

 

[Emma]

I don't believe the framers were describing a collective right, but rather an individual one.

That is incorrect.

The federal government is about to infringe upon our right to bear arms.

The government does not want people armed when they are being told that there will a two year delay for emergency CAT Scans . Nor when they are being told that they have a right to see a doctor but it will take 1 year, or more, for an appointment.

So, as you can imagine, the bureaucrats do not want the people armed, while the federal government exercise the CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE to provide healthcare.

.

I'm talking about the intention of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.

What the hell are YOU talking about? Do you understand collective vs individual?

 

[Contumacious]

Hm ...
as a european, I never got it what it is the americans have with their guns.

Stichwortes

a) Adolf Hitler
b) Schutzstaffel
c) Geheime Staatspolizei
d) Krystallnacht

Erinnerst du dich?


empfehlungen,

ze Yankee

 

[Contumacious]

I don't believe the framers were describing a collective right, but rather an individual one.

That is incorrect.

The federal government is about to infringe upon our right to bear arms.

The government does not want people armed when they are being told that there will a two year delay for emergency CAT Scans . Nor when they are being told that they have a right to see a doctor but it will take 1 year, or more, for an appointment.

So, as you can imagine, the bureaucrats do not want the people armed, while the federal government exercise the CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE to provide healthcare.

.

I'm talking about the intention of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.

What the hell are YOU talking about? Do you understand collective vs individual?

Relax, I was being facetious.

.

 

[germanguy]

Hm ...
as a european, I never got it what it is the americans have with their guns.

Stichwortes

a) Adolf Hitler
b) Schutzstaffel
c) Geheime Staatspolizei
d) Krystallnacht

Erinnerst du dich?


empfehlungen,

ze Yankee

I do not get your point.

regards
ze germanguy