Open Carry Law

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
22

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, the red flags always go up when I hear, “I am not an anti-gun guy. I own several pistols/shotguns/rifles…”

Why?

Because all too often the next words out of the same mouth call for restrictions on, “the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.”

“Mr. Sheriff, pleeeeeeze allow me to exercise my God-given rights. Pleeeeeez. I’m promise I’ll be a good boy if you just give me my PERMIT that allows me to do what has already been guaranteed by my state and my federal constitutions. Thank you, kind sir.”[/quote]

I think OldOgre an me have more than likely seen similar people taking advantage of this law. The type people that are strapping a gun on their side are doing so because it makes them look like a Billy Badass. Some of these people I have hunted with and know that their concept of “bullet continues beyond target” is non-existent and if they are willing to send a rifle shot my way over a deer do you really think the opportunity to be a hero would slow them down.

As I said, there really is no realistic way to regulate that without infringing upon the 2nd and giving a tool to the anti-gun movement, so nothing should be done. However, I do not think that being apprehensive of some of these people toting around a gun at all times makes me anti-gun.

23

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]OldOgre wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’d rather see people open carry than guess if they are conceal carrying. Imo it’s offers a good deterrent factor.

MD law is awful, conceal carry permits are hard to come by (this is supposed to change due to a ruling a few months ago). MDers cannot buy assault rifles any longer and you must be finger printed for hand gun purchases. The new law goes into affect this month I think.

[/quote]

Most of the assault rifle bans actually do not pertain to assault rifles. That term is used incorrectly 99% of the time. If a weapon looks mean it is always called an assault weapon. In reality, if it doesn’t have selective fire, it isn’t an assault weapon.[/quote]

You are in danger of educating those that wish to keep their uneducated opinions and use them for fear mongering. That said I have actually gotten in the bad habit of forgetting my quotes around “assault” rifles when referring to black semi autos when speaking to someone who doesn’t know.[/quote]

I also laugh when people think AR stands for “assault rifle”.[/quote]

It’s a pretty understandable mistake to make for someone who is not knowledgeable with guns. Probably anything they say before or after that in regards to guns is funnier than not knowing an abbreviation for a company that no longer exists.[/quote]

It wouldn’t be a common mistake if news outlets actually did due diligence in their research. And by due diligence I mean a quick google search would stave most of it off.

True because it is usually followed by media hysteria about guns and how no one needs something that can hold so many rounds and kill people by itself.

24

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, the red flags always go up when I hear, “I am not an anti-gun guy. I own several pistols/shotguns/rifles…”

Why?

Because all too often the next words out of the same mouth call for restrictions on, “the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.”

“Mr. Sheriff, pleeeeeeze allow me to exercise my God-given rights. Pleeeeeez. I’m promise I’ll be a good boy if you just give me my PERMIT that allows me to do what has already been guaranteed by my state and my federal constitutions. Thank you, kind sir.”[/quote]

I think OldOgre an me have more than likely seen similar people taking advantage of this law. The type people that are strapping a gun on their side are doing so because it makes them look like a Billy Badass. Some of these people I have hunted with and know that their concept of “bullet continues beyond target” is non-existent and if they are willing to send a rifle shot my way over a deer do you really think the opportunity to be a hero would slow them down.

As I said, there really is no realistic way to regulate that without infringing upon the 2nd and giving a tool to the anti-gun movement, so nothing should be done. However, I do not think that being apprehensive of some of these people toting around a gun at all times makes me anti-gun.[/quote]

And yet 100000 times the number of people die in car accidents. Gun deaths caused by law abiding citizens is such a non-issue. Makes for good rhetoric though as long as you don’t pay attention to the actual numbers.

There are far more people out there that have no business driving cars, but still do it.

25

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
I am somewhat surprised to find out you can’t already do this in those two states…

[/quote]

We actually could. No one really did but for whatever reason they decided to “clean up the language of the law” and now it is costing us a fortune in tax dollars. Very stupid in my opinion.

Usmc, I completely do not understand the vilification of the assault rifle. It is such an insignificant source of gun violence it just makes no sense. If they went after handguns I could at least understand their thinking. And they talk about the quantity of damage they can do, but I still think that if you have two guys go into a building, one with a shotgun with a 10 rd mag of buckshot and the other with a 30 rd assault rifle, I am liking my odds much better against the assault rifle.[/quote]

When the Commander in Chief along with many members of our Congress have no idea what an, “assault rife,” is or how they operate, this is the type of response you get.

It just like the 10 rounds mag vs. 30 round crap. Sure in total (in theory) you are limiting the # of rounds a person can carry, but it literally takes 2 seconds to reload any M16/M4 style weapon.

27

In AZ we are allowed to conceal carry, I like it that way . I don’t carry but if I felt compelled I would conceal and carry even if it were illegal

29

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, the red flags always go up when I hear, “I am not an anti-gun guy. I own several pistols/shotguns/rifles…”

Why?

Because all too often the next words out of the same mouth call for restrictions on, “the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.”

“Mr. Sheriff, pleeeeeeze allow me to exercise my God-given rights. Pleeeeeez. I’m promise I’ll be a good boy if you just give me my PERMIT that allows me to do what has already been guaranteed by my state and my federal constitutions. Thank you, kind sir.”[/quote]

I simply qualified my post because I knew that people like you would assume that I am anti-gun because I think that our new gun law is stupid and unnecessary. I like guns. However, I am anti-dumbass and several red flags of my own have gone up.

30

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, the red flags always go up when I hear, “I am not an anti-gun guy. I own several pistols/shotguns/rifles…”

Why?

Because all too often the next words out of the same mouth call for restrictions on, “the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.”

“Mr. Sheriff, pleeeeeeze allow me to exercise my God-given rights. Pleeeeeez. I’m promise I’ll be a good boy if you just give me my PERMIT that allows me to do what has already been guaranteed by my state and my federal constitutions. Thank you, kind sir.”[/quote]

I think OldOgre an me have more than likely seen similar people taking advantage of this law. The type people that are strapping a gun on their side are doing so because it makes them look like a Billy Badass. Some of these people I have hunted with and know that their concept of “bullet continues beyond target” is non-existent and if they are willing to send a rifle shot my way over a deer do you really think the opportunity to be a hero would slow them down.

As I said, there really is no realistic way to regulate that without infringing upon the 2nd and giving a tool to the anti-gun movement, so nothing should be done. However, I do not think that being apprehensive of some of these people toting around a gun at all times makes me anti-gun.[/quote]

And yet 100000 times the number of people die in car accidents. Gun deaths caused by law abiding citizens is such a non-issue. Makes for good rhetoric though as long as you don’t pay attention to the actual numbers.

There are far more people out there that have no business driving cars, but still do it. [/quote]

And driving a car is a “regulate-able” privilege not an inalienable right. For those who don’t understand the word “inalienable” look it up.[/quote]

As I am well aware, which is why I said that nothing should be done to limit that right. However, in a perfect world, those that choose to exercise that right would accept the personal responsibility of making themselves versed in how to properly use that gun that they have the right to. I still fail to see how saying that it concerns me that known idiots are now walking around with guns is anything less than logical? I am not saying take the guns away or keep them from carrying them, just that it concerns me to see someone who has very little concept on how to use a gun, toting a gun.

31

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, the red flags always go up when I hear, “I am not an anti-gun guy. I own several pistols/shotguns/rifles…”

Why?

Because all too often the next words out of the same mouth call for restrictions on, “the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.”

“Mr. Sheriff, pleeeeeeze allow me to exercise my God-given rights. Pleeeeeez. I’m promise I’ll be a good boy if you just give me my PERMIT that allows me to do what has already been guaranteed by my state and my federal constitutions. Thank you, kind sir.”[/quote]

I think OldOgre an me have more than likely seen similar people taking advantage of this law. The type people that are strapping a gun on their side are doing so because it makes them look like a Billy Badass. Some of these people I have hunted with and know that their concept of “bullet continues beyond target” is non-existent and if they are willing to send a rifle shot my way over a deer do you really think the opportunity to be a hero would slow them down.

As I said, there really is no realistic way to regulate that without infringing upon the 2nd and giving a tool to the anti-gun movement, so nothing should be done. However, I do not think that being apprehensive of some of these people toting around a gun at all times makes me anti-gun.[/quote]

And yet 100000 times the number of people die in car accidents. Gun deaths caused by law abiding citizens is such a non-issue. Makes for good rhetoric though as long as you don’t pay attention to the actual numbers.

There are far more people out there that have no business driving cars, but still do it. [/quote]

And driving a car is a “regulate-able” privilege not an inalienable right. For those who don’t understand the word “inalienable” look it up.[/quote]

As I am well aware, which is why I said that nothing should be done to limit that right. However, in a perfect world, those that choose to exercise that right would accept the personal responsibility of making themselves versed in how to properly use that gun that they have the right to. I still fail to see how saying that it concerns me that known idiots are now walking around with guns is anything less than logical? I am not saying take the guns away or keep them from carrying them, just that it concerns me to see someone who has very little concept on how to use a gun, toting a gun.[/quote]

So, what is your proposal about how to address the car issue? how do we force idiots to stop driving?

32

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, the red flags always go up when I hear, “I am not an anti-gun guy. I own several pistols/shotguns/rifles…”

Why?

Because all too often the next words out of the same mouth call for restrictions on, “the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.”

“Mr. Sheriff, pleeeeeeze allow me to exercise my God-given rights. Pleeeeeez. I’m promise I’ll be a good boy if you just give me my PERMIT that allows me to do what has already been guaranteed by my state and my federal constitutions. Thank you, kind sir.”[/quote]

I think OldOgre an me have more than likely seen similar people taking advantage of this law. The type people that are strapping a gun on their side are doing so because it makes them look like a Billy Badass. Some of these people I have hunted with and know that their concept of “bullet continues beyond target” is non-existent and if they are willing to send a rifle shot my way over a deer do you really think the opportunity to be a hero would slow them down.

As I said, there really is no realistic way to regulate that without infringing upon the 2nd and giving a tool to the anti-gun movement, so nothing should be done. However, I do not think that being apprehensive of some of these people toting around a gun at all times makes me anti-gun.[/quote]

Please address my Arizona/North Carolina comment then.

Where are the hero wannabe poor choice making folks in South Dakota and Vermont? Did they all migrate to Dixie? I guess not because Virginia has open carry.

Here’s the deal – those who shout “murder and mayhem will be rampant in the streets” are the same basic bunch who yapped about it at the beginning of the concealed carry movement. It didn’t happen then. It doesn’t happen now. It doesn’t happen in open carry states like Nevada, Montana, Arizona, South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, North Carolina, Virginia, Vermont, New Mexico and Kentucky so why is it bound to happen in Mississippi and Alabama? You’ve got western, southern and northern states waltzing along with no problems. What’s the deal with your two states?

By the way, I’ve been all over MS and AL. I grew up in the Deep South of north Florida near the AL/GA lines.[/quote]

Concealed carry and open carry is incredibly easy to get here so a lot of people are toting and nothing has ever happened to my knowledge as far as a crossfire incident. However, with the new publicity regarding open carry, a lot of total idiots are getting ready to carry. I know for a fact some of them are total idiots as they have almost shot me when hunting because they got overexcited. I am not saying this is going to all of the sudden turn us in to the wild west, simply that when you mix idiots wanting to be cowboys with guns, the potential for a situation is there. To deny that the potential is there is just short sighted.

One situation that comes to mind is the Jordan Davis case in Florida. If all the details are accurate (which they rarely are but for arguments sakes lets assume they are), Billy Badass with a gun got angry and killed a kid because he thought he might have saw a gun during in an argument.

33

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, the red flags always go up when I hear, “I am not an anti-gun guy. I own several pistols/shotguns/rifles…”

Why?

Because all too often the next words out of the same mouth call for restrictions on, “the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.”

“Mr. Sheriff, pleeeeeeze allow me to exercise my God-given rights. Pleeeeeez. I’m promise I’ll be a good boy if you just give me my PERMIT that allows me to do what has already been guaranteed by my state and my federal constitutions. Thank you, kind sir.”[/quote]

I think OldOgre an me have more than likely seen similar people taking advantage of this law. The type people that are strapping a gun on their side are doing so because it makes them look like a Billy Badass. Some of these people I have hunted with and know that their concept of “bullet continues beyond target” is non-existent and if they are willing to send a rifle shot my way over a deer do you really think the opportunity to be a hero would slow them down.

As I said, there really is no realistic way to regulate that without infringing upon the 2nd and giving a tool to the anti-gun movement, so nothing should be done. However, I do not think that being apprehensive of some of these people toting around a gun at all times makes me anti-gun.[/quote]

And yet 100000 times the number of people die in car accidents. Gun deaths caused by law abiding citizens is such a non-issue. Makes for good rhetoric though as long as you don’t pay attention to the actual numbers.

There are far more people out there that have no business driving cars, but still do it. [/quote]

And driving a car is a “regulate-able” privilege not an inalienable right. For those who don’t understand the word “inalienable” look it up.[/quote]

As I am well aware, which is why I said that nothing should be done to limit that right. However, in a perfect world, those that choose to exercise that right would accept the personal responsibility of making themselves versed in how to properly use that gun that they have the right to. I still fail to see how saying that it concerns me that known idiots are now walking around with guns is anything less than logical? I am not saying take the guns away or keep them from carrying them, just that it concerns me to see someone who has very little concept on how to use a gun, toting a gun.[/quote]

So, what is your proposal about how to address the car issue? how do we force idiots to stop driving?[/quote]

While I do agree that cars kill way more people than guns, it is apples and oranges. You have to pass a test to show that you are minimally competent to get a drivers license and legally operate a vehicle on a roadway. There is no competency test to get a gun. And I sincerely apologize for implying that you are a dumbass while ago.

34

[quote]OldOgre wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, the red flags always go up when I hear, “I am not an anti-gun guy. I own several pistols/shotguns/rifles…”

Why?

Because all too often the next words out of the same mouth call for restrictions on, “the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.”

“Mr. Sheriff, pleeeeeeze allow me to exercise my God-given rights. Pleeeeeez. I’m promise I’ll be a good boy if you just give me my PERMIT that allows me to do what has already been guaranteed by my state and my federal constitutions. Thank you, kind sir.”[/quote]

I think OldOgre an me have more than likely seen similar people taking advantage of this law. The type people that are strapping a gun on their side are doing so because it makes them look like a Billy Badass. Some of these people I have hunted with and know that their concept of “bullet continues beyond target” is non-existent and if they are willing to send a rifle shot my way over a deer do you really think the opportunity to be a hero would slow them down.

As I said, there really is no realistic way to regulate that without infringing upon the 2nd and giving a tool to the anti-gun movement, so nothing should be done. However, I do not think that being apprehensive of some of these people toting around a gun at all times makes me anti-gun.[/quote]

And yet 100000 times the number of people die in car accidents. Gun deaths caused by law abiding citizens is such a non-issue. Makes for good rhetoric though as long as you don’t pay attention to the actual numbers.

There are far more people out there that have no business driving cars, but still do it. [/quote]

And driving a car is a “regulate-able” privilege not an inalienable right. For those who don’t understand the word “inalienable” look it up.[/quote]

As I am well aware, which is why I said that nothing should be done to limit that right. However, in a perfect world, those that choose to exercise that right would accept the personal responsibility of making themselves versed in how to properly use that gun that they have the right to. I still fail to see how saying that it concerns me that known idiots are now walking around with guns is anything less than logical? I am not saying take the guns away or keep them from carrying them, just that it concerns me to see someone who has very little concept on how to use a gun, toting a gun.[/quote]

So, what is your proposal about how to address the car issue? how do we force idiots to stop driving?[/quote]

While I do agree that cars kill way more people than guns, it is apples and oranges. You have to pass a test to show that you are minimally competent to get a drivers license and legally operate a vehicle on a roadway. There is no competency test to get a gun. And I sincerely apologize for implying that you are a dumbass while ago. [/quote]

Edit: What I said was not appropriate so I am deleting it.

35

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, the red flags always go up when I hear, “I am not an anti-gun guy. I own several pistols/shotguns/rifles…”

Why?

Because all too often the next words out of the same mouth call for restrictions on, “the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.”

“Mr. Sheriff, pleeeeeeze allow me to exercise my God-given rights. Pleeeeeez. I’m promise I’ll be a good boy if you just give me my PERMIT that allows me to do what has already been guaranteed by my state and my federal constitutions. Thank you, kind sir.”[/quote]

I think OldOgre an me have more than likely seen similar people taking advantage of this law. The type people that are strapping a gun on their side are doing so because it makes them look like a Billy Badass. Some of these people I have hunted with and know that their concept of “bullet continues beyond target” is non-existent and if they are willing to send a rifle shot my way over a deer do you really think the opportunity to be a hero would slow them down.

As I said, there really is no realistic way to regulate that without infringing upon the 2nd and giving a tool to the anti-gun movement, so nothing should be done. However, I do not think that being apprehensive of some of these people toting around a gun at all times makes me anti-gun.[/quote]

And yet 100000 times the number of people die in car accidents. Gun deaths caused by law abiding citizens is such a non-issue. Makes for good rhetoric though as long as you don’t pay attention to the actual numbers.

There are far more people out there that have no business driving cars, but still do it. [/quote]

And driving a car is a “regulate-able” privilege not an inalienable right. For those who don’t understand the word “inalienable” look it up.[/quote]

As I am well aware, which is why I said that nothing should be done to limit that right. However, in a perfect world, those that choose to exercise that right would accept the personal responsibility of making themselves versed in how to properly use that gun that they have the right to. I still fail to see how saying that it concerns me that known idiots are now walking around with guns is anything less than logical? I am not saying take the guns away or keep them from carrying them, just that it concerns me to see someone who has very little concept on how to use a gun, toting a gun.[/quote]

So, what is your proposal about how to address the car issue? how do we force idiots to stop driving?[/quote]

We force idiots to stop driving all the time. That’s what happens when a license is suspended for DUI’s, excessive tickets, or even medical conditions that would make it dangerous to drive, IE epilepsy or blindness. Stevie Wonder and your local drunk cant drive a car but they can holster up if they choose to.