Open Carry your pistol - on the 4th of July - Exercise your Rights

reply to post by Druscilla

i will not have my rights relegated by asking permission first. i want people to realize that every day is open carry day, or concealed carry day, or bear arms in public day, not just one day of the year.

people need to truly realize that they shouldn't fear a gun more than the person carrying it. a person walking on public property doesn't turn heads, yet if they're openly displaying a firearm people perceive a threat. why?

this silly fear over those carrying guns is disturbing and dangerous.

children should be taught at an early age to respect guns, and that carrying one is to carry extra responsibility. they should not be taught that a citizen carrying a gun is any more dangerous than a citizen who isn't.

Exercise your God given rights.

reply to post by groingrinder



SURELY YOU DON'T REALLY THINK THAT GOD WROTE THE 2ND AMENDMENT

Originally posted by whyamIhere

Looks like you will be having a lot more fun than us...

Sounds like a place I want to go to on the 4th...not..

I'm heading to long beach Washington state where you can do just about anything, and there is so many personal fireworks that it puts the invasion of Normandy to shame. Oh, and you can build a fire pit right on the beach...

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Druscilla

 

i will not have my rights relegated by asking permission first. i want people to realize that every day is open carry day, or concealed carry day, or bear arms in public day, not just one day of the year.

people need to truly realize that they shouldn't fear a gun more than the person carrying it. a person walking on public property doesn't turn heads, yet if they're openly displaying a firearm people perceive a threat. why?

this silly fear over those carrying guns is disturbing and dangerous.

children should be taught at an early age to respect guns, and that carrying one is to carry extra responsibility. they should not be taught that a citizen carrying a gun is any more dangerous than a citizen who isn't.

Please show me exactly where I've made any kind of statement resembling anything regarding "Asking permission".

The statements I've made suggest NOTIFICATION.
Big difference.
Notification is a statement of intent, fair warning, and FYI such that no one will have any confusion as to what is occurring ahead of time. It's a matter of responsibility. It also covers your butt just in case you go down in a hail of bullets where all the media gets hijacked in labeling you a militant terrorist, mentally ill fanatic, or whatever kind of spin big media under the direction of big media's masters might want to spin it.

A documented advance notification of legal intent ensures that your family at least has solid time stamped documentation of your notification of peaceful and legal open carry.

There's more ways to protect one's family than losing all sense of caution, planning and foresight by suddenly becoming invincible by open carrying.

That's the impression I'm getting from some here: "It's MY RIGHT!!!!! If My family and I have to become Martyrs to protect that RIGHT handed down by ALLAH himself, then ALLAH be praised.

Oh, wait, is it Allah, or God?
See what I did there?

Perspective.

Please be responsible and notify the proper people so they don't get surprised and react badly.

EDIT: Something else to consider is: Encouragement
Encouragement?
Yes.
Your open carry could very well encourage other even LESS responsible, possibly even drunken yahoos to bring out their own arsenals in open abundance.
Nothing wrong with that eh?
Well, what happens when they start firing celebratory rounds up in the air?
What are you going to do then?
Suddenly police will have all sorts of probable cause to respond with whatever means they feel necessary when live ammunition is being discharged in public.
You might not be any part of it, but, if you're in the middle of it, who's to say you didn't?
Fireworks and gun powder residue will be thick in the air and all over everyone regardless of whether they even know how to spell the word "gun".

Just a thought.

July 4th.
I wonder how this is going, or if at all?
If going and going well, please post time stamped pictures as well as your general location so we can watch the news (just in case).

Please also show us pictures of anyone else that may have been encouraged by open carry to bring out their own arsenals.

reply to post by Druscilla

what would you call mandatory notification? i'd call it asking for permission. you will make the claim that it is not mandatory, but then why suggest it be done? i remember a time when protests could legally be held without giving "notification" first, but now one must stay within ze designated areas.

does one have to say "let everyone be aware that i am notifying everyone within hearing distance of my intent to use the first amendment"? no, it would be ludicrous.

would you rather have a society where there was no example of how to responsibly carry a gun, or a society where children and curious adults were shown what it looks like to be a responsible gun owner?

See what I did there? Perspective.

no. i truly don't see what you were going for. you've substituted one term for an equal term. i never spoke of martyrdom, nor did i hint at it.

the right to bear arms is a very important right. all others rest on this one right. people are justified in feeling that the right should be defended and exercised responsibly. you are attempting to set up a strawman so that you can kill it and look like the victor. you wish to set up gun owners as inherently irresponsible for defending a right that everyone has, for defending all rights that we enjoy.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


That was a good police officer and being a woman she definitely understood the reasoning.

star for the police officer and a star for the citizen.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
what would you call mandatory notification? i'd call it asking for permission. you will make the claim that it is not mandatory, but then why suggest it be done? i remember a time when protests could legally be held without giving "notification" first, but now one must stay within ze designated areas.

Protests are fine, any time, anywhere, all the time, I suppose is how you'd prefer such. Freedom of assembly and all, right?
Let's say you live in an urban area and you suddenly have 5000 protesters camped out on your neighborhood street, using you lawn and garden as a bathroom for both kinds of bodily purges, leaving all their trash on the street, blowing into your yard, chanting and yelling all hours of the day and night, blocking the road and your driveway, harassing you at every turn with "you're either with us or against us" tactics, with miscreants and opportunists drawn by the crowd breaking into homes after the owners leave for either work, or to rent another house for the duration of the protest, all of this going on for weeks and months similar to the Occupy movement, all of them protesting against something you personally are in complete support of.

I'm sure you might feel a little differently about putting protests in ze designated zones.
Freedom of assembly? It's America? They're technically protesting on public/community property (your neighborhood street).
That is, of course, entirely theoretical, and certainly nothing like that could happen to you, or anyone else, correct?

does one have to say "let everyone be aware that i am notifying everyone within hearing distance of my intent to use the first amendment"? no, it would be ludicrous.

Actually to some extent, people DO, especially when they're being disruptive, vulgar, loud, obnoxious, foul, unruly, insulting, rude, and altogether unmanageable.
I'm sure you'd feel really comfortable with non-convicted child molesters following around your family broadcasting what kind of speculative fantasies they have about your children.
Freedom of speech, right? They're JUST talking. It's quite fine and okay for your children to hear all about it too, what with being in public and all, right?

would you rather have a society where there was no example of how to responsibly carry a gun, or a society where children and curious adults were shown what it looks like to be a responsible gun owner?

I'd actually prefer a society where no one ever felt the need or desire to own a gun, except, perhaps for sport shooting, hunting, or protection from large predators during deep wilderness excursions.

]
no. i truly don't see what you were going for. you've substituted one term for an equal term. i never spoke of martyrdom, nor did i hint at it.

That wasn't necessarily for you personally, as none of this is necessarily for you personally. These discussions are read by more than just you and I. I often frame my responses as responses to the overall readership, so, please accept my apologies for any personal confusion you had there.
There, are, however, people, one, I think even voiced something along the lines of dying to fight for their right to bear arms, so, I thought the martyrdom/jihad aspect might shed an interesting perspective.

... you are attempting to set up a strawman so that you can kill it and look like the victor. you wish to set up gun owners as inherently irresponsible for defending a right that everyone has, for defending all rights that we enjoy.

I'm fairly sure you're misrepresenting/misinterpreting my argument there.
You may have missed it, but, I myself am also a gun owner. I own an old Browning M1911 .45 pistol handed down from my grandfather that I think was his service side arm during WWII.
I even Open Carry this pistol when I go on my deep wilderness entirely off-trail excursions for duration of a week or more.

My points are all about responsibility, not only for yourself, but for others as well. Further, while Open Carry may be legal in your area, it's abnormal behavior to run around with a weapon in civilized society. It's even a little rude and frightening. What's your situational awareness like? What kind of holster do you carry, and in what position? How easy would it be for someone to take your weapon out of its holster if, for any reason you were incapacitated? Like with a double dose of mace and taser gun?
Will your example spur irresponsible owners to carry around their arsenals irresponsibly, thus putting other people in danger due your influence?

We have certain inalienable rights, sure, but, there's such a thing as abuse, and such a thing as having something and not needing it, and there's such a thing as socially acceptable behavior regardless of legality.

I own a gun, yet have no need, desire, or requirement to carry it around in civilized public. Why would anyone else?

reply to post by Druscilla

Protests are fine, any time, anywhere, all the time, I suppose is how you'd prefer such. Freedom of assembly and all, right?

yes. it's sort of a big deal. as for your scenario (an unlikely scenario), the property owner has the right to defend his property.

you really are for abrogating rights it seems.

I'm sure you'd feel really comfortable with non-convicted child molesters following around your family broadcasting what kind of speculative fantasies they have about your children.

those would be classified as threats. the person would also be guilty of harassment and stalking. i would place them under citizens arrest. you see, one's rights are virtually unlimited, until they start infringing on another's rights. it works out nicely.

I'd actually prefer a society where no one ever felt the need or desire to own a gun, except, perhaps for sport shooting, hunting, or protection from large predators during deep wilderness excursions.

so would i, but that won't be reality for quite some time. you want to have your cake and eat it too, listing pedophilic behavior and property rights violations in your first two points but then you wish to take guns away also. so you acknowledge that there is a real threat to one's life, liberty, and property but you also would rather take away a person's ability to defend themselves. the desire for people to own a gun stems directly from the dangers you listed.

I think even voiced something along the lines of dying to fight for their right to bear arms, so, I thought the martyrdom/jihad aspect might shed an interesting perspective.

while i would disagree that dying for one's rights is martyrdom, i would say that you do not have rights unless you'd be willing to fight and risk your life for them.

My points are all about responsibility, not only for yourself, but for others as well. Further, while Open Carry may be legal in your area, it's abnormal behavior to run around with a weapon in civilized society.

as are mine. open carry is legal everywhere, even in states that prohibit it. read the 14 amendment and miranda v. arizona. i also disagree that our society is "civilized", it isn't, but even so you're using "abnormal" to mean a negative thing, whereas it is abnormal because not many do it. it's a reasoning error, assuming that something not often done can be classified as a negative because it isn't often done.

We have certain inalienable rights, sure, but, there's such a thing as abuse, and such a thing as having something and not needing it, and there's such a thing as socially acceptable behavior regardless of legality.

these are all opinion statements besides the first, that we do have certain inalienable rights. there is such a thing as "abuse", but relative to one practicing their rights legally and sensibly? no. i would rather have guns and not need them, but if that point were ever reached, i wouldn't throw them away. "socially acceptable behavior" has nothing to do with morality or legality. people have been told to fear those that carry guns as part of an agenda for many years. this is exactly why people need to be shown exactly what responsible gun ownership and presentation look like.

I own a gun, yet have no need, desire, or requirement to carry it around in civilized public. Why would anyone else?

you still want to have your cake and eat it too. you first list two examples of dangerous situations: property rights violations, and threats from an individual that means a child harm. those are your examples. you then conclude "why would anyone carry a gun around in civilized public?". you've answered your own question.

It was a glorious 4th of July. Everyone enjoyed themselves and the neighbors let off some awesome fireworks. Here is a photo of the local Apache Junction fireworks display.

reply to post by groingrinder

i had a fun time as well, though today shall be even more fun. tons of leftover fireworks, and one in particular that couldn't be completed in time.

picture it: a 30 lb smoke bomb. 8 inch diameter casing!!!! $60 to make, completely legal, and utterly ridiculous.

It's funny, I went to the 4th of July festivities with my 10 year old son last night. We watched the fireworks, he played in the playground. Amazingly I wasn't accosted by roving gangs of thugs trying to massacre or rob anyone. Astoundingly I was not held up at gunpoint by vicious highwaymen going back to my car.

Some people seem to view life as one big warzone. It's funny how it isn't.

reply to post by HauntWok

Some people seem to view life as one big warzone. It's funny how it isn't.

funny how people arguing against guns want to have it both ways "guns kill lots of people" and "you don't need guns cuz nothing bad will happen to you" don't go hand in hand.

there is either a real danger to one's person, property, and liberty, or there isn't. if there is a danger, i'd rather have a gun, and if there isn't a danger, i'd still rather have a gun because i can't see the future. if there is no danger, what is the harm in carrying a gun?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


That smoke bomb sounds like so much fun! Wow, I am shocked at the money ($60.00) that you invested in it. I hope you take pictures and video when you set it off.

reply to post by HauntWok


I am glad you had a good 4th of July with your family! There was no war zone here either. Just lots of noisy fun. Take care.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

if there is no danger, what is the harm in carrying a gun?

HMM, perhaps (depending on your level of maturity and firearms capability) you carrying the gun creates the danger.

I'm not saying that you are completely ignorant about firearm safety, or couldn't handle a firearm in the event you needed to. I'm just saying that there are people out there like the following guy.



Which is how I imagine most gun nuts, who feel the need to always be armed even though they are in no danger whatsoever from anyone.

reply to post by HauntWok


Tex is a fine example of what not to do with your weapon. All my weapons have the safety engaged until I am sighting down the barrel. I have seen plenty of Tex's in Montana, Colorado, and Arizona. I do not try to play fast draw as I have never been bushwhacked by Billy the Kid or the Dalton gang. I have a feeling that we would have been better off if Tex had shot himself in the nuts instead of in the leg.

reply to post by HauntWok

Which is how I imagine most gun nuts

this is the problem right here. if your assumption was true, there wouldn't be any gun nuts left because they would have killed themselves in their stupidity, or, failing that, they would wipe out all the unarmed anti-gun people because people who own and carry guns are violent. yet neither of these situations has occurred.

crime exists, people get killed, raped, mugged etc. that is why i carry a gun.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

this is the problem right here. if your assumption was true, there wouldn't be any gun nuts left because they would have killed themselves in their stupidity, or, failing that, they would wipe out all the unarmed anti-gun people because people who own and carry guns are violent. yet neither of these situations has occurred.

That's not what the statistics show.

www.washingtonpost.com...

So, I wonder, how many people have shot themselves without a gun? The same question goes, how many people do you think have shot another person without a gun?

reply to post by HauntWok

So, I wonder, how many people have shot themselves without a gun? The same question goes, how many people do you think have shot another person without a gun?

lots of circular reasoning on your part. this will be my last response to you because i do not think you care about what is true, you'd rather debate than discuss.

how many people have harmed themselves without a gun? lots of people. in fact, deaths from accidentally falling are higher than all gun related homicides combined (murders AND self defense shootings).

how many people have harmed another person without a gun? again, quite a large amount.

your response is as asinine as me saying "well how many people have died while not possessing a gun?". the answer would be a lot more people die while not carrying a gun.

people on this forum aren't as easily deceived as you appear to think, most see right through you.