Open Carry: Why????

[seeker_two]

Do turtles open-carry? Seems like they have a good cover garment....

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[TheDan]

tactical advantage

Because when a 7ft crack head wants to slash your throat you don't have to fish around for your CCW.

 

[Southpaw]

I like turtles.

Awesome!!

 

[Patchntx]

That statement sounded the same way to me as well.. ??

Poor wording on my part. I have neither the time or the means to help the cause. I'm just not getting involved. Not going to fight it either. I did not mean to imply that I am against it. Just not mustering up to join. There are circumstances that OC is advantageous hence the reason for my questions. I don't think that 2nd amendment rights is a valid argument. Not just because I think there are folks out there that just don't need a gun and I am not saying they couldn't get one anyway.

The biggest problem is that the constitution was forged from public opinion. Crafted by the smartest men of their time and paid for with the blood of patriots.
But the task of protecting it was given to the President. The current of which doesn't give a damn about the constitution or citizens of this country. It is protected by the man who wants to give unrestricted access, free healthcare, and free education to people that won't serve, pay taxes or learn English, or contribute anything to the country they reside in.
The task of upholding the Constitution in Law was given to the Supreme Court. A collection of geriatrics that think that a corporation is a person and would tear down the republic to make sure technicalities will free criminals in the name of rights not attributed to the constitution. Unfortunately Miranda rights get more spotlight time than the Bill of Rights.
Then to add insult to injury, they gave the right to amend the Constitution to a bunch of self serving, greedy, asshats, who crafted a plan to bankrupt the country and have us 20 trillion dollars in debt to the the same Chinese we just fought two wars against, and all by the year 2015. Just a mere 75 years after posting a surplus and being the most powerful nation on the planet.

Despite what anyone wants to believe, the asshats in DC have rendered the Bill of Rights impotent. The conservatives aren't any better than the liberals, its just that the liberals are taking us to hell faster. All politicians are lying crooks including the ones we all voted for.

I am truly sorry but despite what anyone wants to believe, public opinion is more powerful than the Constitution by several orders of magnitude.

If anyone wants to really get the OC pushed through, you will have to win public opinion. Grandstanding about rights will get the argument on the table but it won't get it passed in the capitol. That requires a maximum of legislative push, and a minimum of public opinion backlash. IT is absolutely necessary to get public opinion on the side of OC. IT has to be sold to the public. No appeal of rights will get the job done. The Constitutional Rights will only come into play if a law going in 'the other direction' is passed and brought to the supreme court and the court determines it is unconstitutional. Good luck with that. Neither the Texas Supreme Court not the US Supreme Court is above the pressure of public opinion. Or graft.

The fact is this: public opinion shapes public policy. If your OC public is smaller that the general public you better get some more folks on your side. No one going to get any allies by stomping feet and waving hands about rights. You are correct about your rights. But you won't win that way. Ask any lawyer. Legal fights are not won on being right. They are won on the emotional ability to move the opinion of the jurors and technicalities. Anyone who wants to get their law passed, need to accomplish more than a couple of things:

Find pragmatic and practical reasons for people to have OC and convince the population that you are right on that basis. ie you can protect them from criminals, terrorists, Columbine and Movie theater crazies, when the police can't

Change the public fear that OC isn't old western gunslingers with a low slung .45 on one side and a 12 gauge over their shoulder while they are ordering a burger at McDonalds. The OCT folks down at the Capital aren't helping you there.

Don't call it OC, CHL, or CCW. They all sound sinister. Give it a name and start referring to those of us who carry; Guardians or Defenders or something.

Start a 503c, get NRA to back it, and hire a spin doctor to change the image of OC in the public eye.

Stop the fine folks that went down to the capital and protested while carrying long guns and threatening people to stop helping. They aren't.

I already carry what is probably defined as open carry as I carry a full size 1911 in a strong side slide at 2 or 3 o'clock and cover it with an open jacket or soft vest. I carry 11 rounds in the gun and another 20 on tap any time I leave the house. I am not fooling anyone.

I am 46 years old. The days ahead are far fewer than the ones behind. I intend to spend the next 2 decades enjoying spoiling my grandchildren, building an airplane in my garage, customizing my motorcycle, shooting at the range, and enjoying the precious little time I get off from work with my lovely wife. I won't get distracted from that by chasing ideological dreams of carrying the same firearm in the same holster but without the vest or jacket. **** that shit.

I am not fighting against OC. I am just that far removed from that stage in my life.

And I am quite sure I am above name calling and intimidation tactics. I matured past that about 35 years ago. Some people never get past it. It's the only ammunition they have.

To be fair to everyone on this Forum: The biggest problem this country has is there are not enough patriots that do care about rights. The fact that you are all here and discussing it makes you all patriots. I would cast my vote in the booth for anyone on this website over any sitting asshat in Austin or DC. Without a second thought or question. That includes the name calling assholes.

Good luck in your fight. You will need that and a whole lot more.

 

[Younggun]

You just called some of us assholes.

What happened to growing out of that?



Jerk

 

[itchin]

HB195 may pass easily. Mr. Abbott has publicly stated his support for it. I think if it makes it to a vote it passes. Patch your double talk bs makes no sense. I'm not sure what exactly you're here for, or the point of this thread.

 

[Patchntx]

Typical Prog/Troll tactic. Say something, then later in the debate claim to have never said it.

I did say it. I'm not fighting OC, just not fighting for it.

Keep up the name calling. It makes you seem smarter and educated. Do it again.

 

[Younggun]

No time to email or make a quick phone call to support anything.

Time to get on a gun forum and argue with everyone about why they need to open carry.

 

[itchin]

Atleast he uses paragraphs.

 

[Patchntx]

It's funny how staunch gun rights guys focus their most voracious attacks on those that seem on the fence. Let's try to explain to the OP why it is important to this group without calling him a flaming liberal.

It's funny but unlikely to change his mind.


You are quite correct. Guys like that might win their fight if they spent more time trying to convince people on the fence to join instead of name calling. They don't see it though. I wonder why. Must be a lack of progressive education. Or maybe just education in general.

-—-
I, of course will become the new target but I would prefer we put our energy into recruiting the undecided into seeing things our way instead of trying to belittle them into conformance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll draw their fire by continuing to talk, you flank them.

 

[Patchntx]

You just called some of us assholes.

What happened to growing out of that?



Jerk

I also commented on my respect for the fortitude of their beliefs, and the fact that anyone here is better suited to represent us that anyone currently sitting in office. And I am an asshole as well. I'm not trying to convince anyone otherwise.

 

[Patchntx]

HB195 may pass easily. Mr. Abbott has publicly stated his support for it. I think if it makes it to a vote it passes. Patch your double talk bs makes no sense. I'm not sure what exactly you're here for, or the point of this thread.

I'll research it. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Patchntx]

No time to email or make a quick phone call to support anything.

Time to get on a gun forum and argue with everyone about why they need to open carry.

Because you need OC. I don't.

 

[Younggun]

Because you need OC. I don't.

I fight for many rights I may never use, because that's how all rights are protected.

I'll still fight for your rights also, even the ones I may not exercise. Guess I just got principles like that.

If you think OC isn't about the greater gun rights battle, your wrong.

 

[WCDUB]

let me ask this, why do you care if someone wants to OC? If you don't want to......then don't. Why do you want others to NOT have that RIGHT?

You people are touchy! Patchntx didn't say one word against OC,he merely asked what tactical advantage it gives,if any.

 

[itchin]

He pulled the whole "why do you need" bs. Same ole bs. "Why would anyone need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds?". It's strait out of the Brady bunch play book. Oh and they usually say they own guns. Like ole shotgun joe Biden.

 

[WCDUB]

The OP doesn't assume that OC is a path for felons to legally carry. Someone I know believes that at least one of the bills has no provision for any sort of class, background check, or provisions to prevent someone who is not competent to have a gun from legally carrying one. I do not know if it is true or not. I haven't taken anytime to research it and is one of the reasons I brought it up.

You are correct in the OP has already made is mind up. You are incorrect about what. As stated, I don't care either way. I don't have any negative feelings about open carry. I do have negative feelings about all or nothing thinking.

I also never asked the question "why anyone wants OC". Although several posters have answered that question as if I did ask it. I don't care "why anyone wants OC". I assume they want it because they want it.

And I have to wonder why anyone would think that I sit on the sidelines because I don't support OC. I support gun ownership. I own 6 shotguns, 1 rifle, and 3 pistols and am getting my entire family training and getting them involved. I support the right to carry. I do not care if it is OC or CC mandated. I carry concealed and will even if open carry becomes an option. I do not want someone to know I am carrying until it is too late for them.

I do believe that I get to choose to stand somewhere between the two extremes just as you choose to stand with OC. My indifference to OC does not put me on the sidelines nor does it make me anti-gun ownership. OC just isn't important to me.

Good reply. I'm not against OC either,
but I would never do so. To me, all the
tactical advantage goes to CC,and that
is my preference.
If I was a BG,and I went into a place to shoot people,the OC folks would be the
first ones I engaged,because they would
be the obvious threat.But I wouldn't know who is carrying concealed, so they would
have the tactical advantage.
I support Constitutional carry, open or concealed,your choice,without need of permit.If you want to OC,that is fine by me.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

What I would find helpful and and a legal advantage would to prevent business owners from restricting their employees from carrying at work. I work in an often dangerous environment and don't appreciate having to leave my weapon in my car. If someone threatens my life in a holdup or random shooting I would like to have the right to stop the threat. That would be a bill I could get behind.

First of all let me welcome you to the forum....interesting ain't it :P We have all sorts of personalities here for sure. I personally ain't gonna call you a troll, heck I was once exactly what they accuse you of being a flaming liberal (more accurately a full blown socialist).

I would like to clarify for you this particular statement that I quoted though, I'm honestly surprised nobody addressed this specific comment yet. I personally am against what you propose even though I have been faced with a very similar situation. I am a home inspector and actually the exact thing that got me into guns in the first place was when I went to inspect a nice home in a bad neighborhood (gentrification) that had a few windows shot out. I soon unfortunately found out that my company has a policy against carrying guns within our company supplied vehicles, even with a CHL. Like you I was initially a bit pissed that they could "violate my rights" like this. Here's the kicker though, the constitution is only limitations placed upon the federal government (and state constitutions upon their respective state governments). A business or someone and their personal property are held to no such restrictions. If you are in/on someone elses property (company vehicle in my case, company owned store in your case) they have their own rights, property rights to be specific. IMO they have the right to dictate what you can and can't do on their property (short of depriving you of life of stealing from you) and that includes whether you can carry a gun or what type of speech you can use among other things. You have the right to leave said property, not work for said property owner, etc and work for somebody/patron a business who's policies you agree with.

Hope that clarifies things.....and welcome to the pit We get heated and passionate about things here (which IMO is a good thing even if shit gets slung alot).

 

[jrbfishn]

Tactical advantage , either way, depends on the moment and the people involved. There is no clear cut choice either way.

from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[Tortuga]

He pulled the whole "why do you need" bs. Same ole bs. "Why would anyone need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds?". It's strait out of the Brady bunch play book. Oh and they usually say they own guns. Like ole shotgun joe Biden.

This.