Open Carry AR

[tech411]

What state was the open carry of the AR that was talked about in you last podcast?

[TravisLeibold]

If you are talking about the guy who carried an AR to an Obama rally or some such, that was AZ. Booyah!!..

[tech411]

It was in a restaurant.

[jmstevens2]

Funny how cultures differ. How many photos have you seen of IDF in civilian clothes in stores, restaurants etc have you seen where no one noticed the loaded M-16s on their backs? Here we freak out.

I was wondering where that was too.

[TravisLeibold]

Its becuase it was black probably. Paint it pink with rainbows and it would be fine...

[Devereaux]

Funny how cultures differ. How many photos have you seen of IDF in civilian clothes in stores, restaurants etc have you seen where no one noticed the loaded M-16s on their backs? Here we freak out.

I was wondering where that was too.

Yes, well, it's because Israelis are serious about self-preservation, and we are not - by-and-large (to steal a nautical term). And even here the ones that freak out are generally libs, who have an over-dramatized response to pretty much anything they disagree with. Note the call for "civilized speech" post AZ shooting, but the call for "getting a little bloody in the streets" over WI attempt to rein in out-of-control public sector unions - which probably should be simply outlawed.

Libs are inherently "noisey" - and that probably comes from controlling the MSM. Propaganda usually is shrill.

[jmstevens2]

If unions are outlawed for public safety workers, then I am rather glad I am retired. Yea, we got it good, I get no healthcare as a retiree (I could pay $1200 a month, for crappy insurance, which is about 1/2 of my pension but I like to eat now and then), and a 50% pay cut to retire , yea, we have it good. Just because some do, does not mean all do.
Where I was, safety is of NO concern to them National standard is 4 on a fire engine. We run 2 in a house. They are talking about going back to 1 man engines if Kaisich gets his way.  You know, by federal law I am not allowed to enter your burning hose until there are 4 firefighters there? And the guy operating the pump and the Command officer don't count. If this passes I will bet we will start obeying that law instead of taking the risk to save your house.
Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it.

[BikerRN]

I commend the guy that open carried a rifle.

The Second Amendment doesn't specify that arms must be handguns carried concealed, and rifles are way better than handguns as far as I'm concerned. "The purpose of a handgun is to fight your way back to your rifle, that you never should've left behind in the first place;" as Clint Smith likes to say. 

I would like to see society conditioned so that we could all carry rifles in public if we chose to without upsetting the soccer moms.

Biker

[Eric R Shelton]

I commend the guy that open carried a rifle.

The Second Amendment doesn't specify that arms must be handguns carried concealed, and rifles are way better than handguns as far as I'm concerned. "The purpose of a handgun is to fight your way back to your rifle, that you never should've left behind in the first place;" as Clint Smith likes to say.  

I would like to see society conditioned so that we could all carry rifles in public if we chose to without upsetting the soccer moms.

Biker

Throw that up against the doctrine of the reasonable man, and you'll lose every time.

However, this requires some clarification.  In the case of the political rally in Phoenix, it was a gentleman providing a silent reminder of the rights and powers "we the people" hold.  In the case of the douche who carried an AR-15 into a restaurant, it was just some guy being an asshole to intentionally scare the sheeple, and unintentionally set back the open carry and "normalization" of firearms.  I would love to see somebody try to defend that f***tard as a reasonable man.  It would be right up there with trying to rationalize keeping one's finger on the trigger at all times.  There may be some persuasive arguments that could be made, but nothing that would pass serious examination.

[BikerRN]

I commend the guy that open carried a rifle.

The Second Amendment doesn't specify that arms must be handguns carried concealed, and rifles are way better than handguns as far as I'm concerned. "The purpose of a handgun is to fight your way back to your rifle, that you never should've left behind in the first place;" as Clint Smith likes to say.  

I would like to see society conditioned so that we could all carry rifles in public if we chose to without upsetting the soccer moms.

Biker

Throw that up against the doctrine of the reasonable man, and you'll lose every time.

However, this requires some clarification.  In the case of the political rally in Phoenix, it was a gentleman providing a silent reminder of the rights and powers "we the people" hold.  In the case of the douche who carried an AR-15 into a restaurant, it was just some guy being an asshole to intentionally scare the sheeple, and unintentionally set back the open carry and "normalization" of firearms.  I would love to see somebody try to defend that f***tard as a reasonable man.  It would be right up there with trying to rationalize keeping one's finger on the trigger at all times.  There may be some persuasive arguments that could be made, but nothing that would pass serious examination.

I will of course disagree with you. 

The only way to normalize open carry of a rifle is to carry one and be seen. I do not know what the attitude of the person was that did so, or what his reasoning was beyond the simple fact that he could, but that's enough for me. Does it scare people? I guess it did in this case. However, being that we live in a supposedly "free" society, I would ask you to keep one thing in mind, Freedom is not without it's inherent dangers.

I would much rather give up some "safety" to be free.

Biker

[jcarbo]

From a political standpoint, he has every right to do what he did.  However, you are not going to win the hearts and minds of individuals by coming across as overly cavalier.  The normalization of firearms to the unfamiliar requires some finesse, which is why you give a .22 to first-time shooter and emphasize safety in the process, not a .44 mag and a bottle of Lynchburg's finest.

From a practical standpoint, wouldn't carrying an AR-style rifle into such an environment (civilian, non-hostile, decent amount of people present) be tactically dumb?  A concealed handgun, while obviously not as powerful, holds much more value to the individual because it remains out of sight.  More over, if he actually had to use that rifle in a SD encounter, how exactly would that appear in court?

Appropriate discretion is of the utmost importance.

[kilo113]

Tactically dumb I think. If a bad guy, with a concealed weapon, intent on killing, walked into that restaurant who do you think is going to get the first bullet? Of course, the argument would be that an OC AR would dissuade bad guys in the first place. I think the whole incident is an instance of LOOK AT ME, PLEEEEEASE!

[Devereaux]

I commend the guy that open carried a rifle.

The Second Amendment doesn't specify that arms must be handguns carried concealed, and rifles are way better than handguns as far as I'm concerned. "The purpose of a handgun is to fight your way back to your rifle, that you never should've left behind in the first place;" as Clint Smith likes to say.  

I would like to see society conditioned so that we could all carry rifles in public if we chose to without upsetting the soccer moms.

Biker

Throw that up against the doctrine of the reasonable man, and you'll lose every time.

However, this requires some clarification.  In the case of the political rally in Phoenix, it was a gentleman providing a silent reminder of the rights and powers "we the people" hold.  In the case of the douche who carried an AR-15 into a restaurant, it was just some guy being an asshole to intentionally scare the sheeple, and unintentionally set back the open carry and "normalization" of firearms.  I would love to see somebody try to defend that f***tard as a reasonable man.  It would be right up there with trying to rationalize keeping one's finger on the trigger at all times.  There may be some persuasive arguments that could be made, but nothing that would pass serious examination.

Eric,

Just asking. Perhaps you would like to expound how "reasonable man" "doctrine" has any effect on rights. Your attempt to differentiate appears to me to be YOU think carrying at a rally is OK, but carrying in a restaurant is NOT. That would be an opinion, and perhaps even a rational consideration of actual situations, but it doesn't seem to qualify as a limitation of rights. It does NOT come up to the usual things like yelling out FIRE in a packed room, where such action can lead to serious injury to others and is untrue in its fact.

[xmunckx]

Dev,
I don't think anyone is arguing that this individual is not allowed to do what he did.  In the same way no one would tell me I'm not allowed to walk around in a Batman costume all day.
I think its more about criticizing someone for just being,, well, kind of a shameless jackass, for lack of a better term.
He may not be breaking the law and it's certainly within his legal rights but then there are allot of goofy things that fall under that umbrella.  



sent by Mr. Munck using Tapatalk on my Droid X

[Gandalf]

I think the entire open carry debate is that there's a time and place to assert 2nd amendment rights as a political point.  What you have to decide is what could be the unintended consequences of my actions and is it worth the point you're trying to make?

Right now, with concealed carry, it's sort of "what the public doesn't know won't hurt them" mentality.  In a shall issue state like Washington, where I live, shall issue is the law in spite of the vast liberal population in places like seattle.  Granted, there are a lot of pro gunners on the left, but they're drowned out by the emotional hysteria.

Now, as long as the sheeple aren't startled, things are fine.  They know there are people carrying concealed, but as long as they don't see it, ignorance is bliss.  They don't think about it.

But if you startle them, they may react in an overly hysterical and emotional fashion, demanding knee jerk oppression and rights infringment.  I'd much rather be able to carry without any hassle, than have the legislature (overwhelmingly democratic) suddenly have something to react to.

In other words, be happy with what rights you have, in some places it can be snatched away relatively quickly.  At least our state attorney general is a moderate republican.  It could be worse.

[BikerRN]

I think we are all viewing the problem, elephant if you will, from a different angle and being blind we all have a different descriptive of the elephant.

Oh, and Eric,  .

Biker

[Devereaux]

I will grant Munck's point. I can think of a situation where carrying one's rifle into a "restaurant" would be reasonable, but then, I can think of a lot more situations where carrying an AR would be pretty much silly.

As far as sheeple are concerned, I DO believe it behooves us to pressure them to begin to accept our rights as rights. That takes argument, presuasion - and exposure. Constantly conceding to the idiots only leaves us at the idiots' mercy. It was what made the 2A such a pariah for so long and took such a long time to finally get some real reasoning about it. The NRA has been scared to death to question it for many, many years. We finally had enough courage to attack it - and win.

[BikerRN]

I will grant Munck's point. I can think of a situation where carrying one's rifle into a "restaurant" would be reasonable, but then, I can think of a lot more situations where carrying an AR would be pretty much silly.

As far as sheeple are concerned, I DO believe it behooves us to pressure them to begin to accept our rights as rights. That takes argument, presuasion - and exposure. Constantly conceding to the idiots only leaves us at the idiots' mercy. It was what made the 2A such a pariah for so long and took such a long time to finally get some real reasoning about it. The NRA has been scared to death to question it for many, many years. We finally had enough courage to attack it - and win.

I agree.

It is through actions like this that subjects can become conditioned to citizens carrying arms. That will take education, persusion, cajoling, and confrontation. I would love to be able to carry my M4 while shopping at the mall.

Biker

[xmunckx]

I will grant Munck's point. I can think of a situation where carrying one's rifle into a "restaurant" would be reasonable, but then, I can think of a lot more situations where carrying an AR would be pretty much silly.

As far as sheeple are concerned, I DO believe it behooves us to pressure them to begin to accept our rights as rights. That takes argument, presuasion - and exposure. Constantly conceding to the idiots only leaves us at the idiots' mercy. It was what made the 2A such a pariah for so long and took such a long time to finally get some real reasoning about it. The NRA has been scared to death to question it for many, many years. We finally had enough courage to attack it - and win.

I agree.

It is through actions like this that subjects can become conditioned to citizens carrying arms. That will take education, persusion, cajoling, and confrontation. I would love to be able to carry my M4 while shopping at the mall.

Biker

Think about it though.... would you really? 
I mean, , Isn't that a bit cumbersome, especially considering you would be carrying any purchases you might make... There is a reason the handgun was invented.
Maybe that's what bugs me a little about the idea of carrying a long gun into a place like a restaurant (and I will concede that there may be a time where it is perfectly reasonable to do so) or a shopping mall, to me at least, give the impression that you aren't there for any other reason than to be carrying a rifle in public. 
I have a feeling that I am not explaining how I feel very well.
It's like, if i were trying to do fine finish woodwork with a Tree felling axe.. It may have a sharp edge but it's still a terrible tool for the task..

I don't know.. .my brain may be on strike or something ,

Munck 

[Devereaux]

The reason handguns were invented was to allow you to get into a gunfight an never actually HIT anyone. (Joke, Eric!   )

In Israel you actually see people walking around with rifles on slings. No one is bothered by that. We have come far from that level of danger, at least in our perceptions. NOW if you have a rifle in your pick-up everyone wonders just why. So much of the sense that is noted here is mostly a function of not being raised with this response. Indeed, most of the younger crowd here probably heard a lot of anti-gun rhetoric when they were in lower schools - I know my son did, and would come home with that nonsense. I would then have to have a discussion with him pointing out just why it was drivel, and he became kind of known in the school for his "opinions" - which obviously didn't jibe with the school's.

Now picture ONE guy in that crowd by the store where Gifford was shot with an AR slung on his back, carrying his groceries to his whatever, when the shooting started. ?How much more chance would there have been for him to stop that fight. It is significantly harder to hit a guy with a handgun at 30 yards, while being shot at. So this isn't exactly unrealistic thinking - just unseen in our society.

  And knowing Biker, I would expect a 1911 on the belt, an M4 on the right shoulder, slung, and an RPG on the left - ready for anything. Gotta admint, Munck, he would be ready for most anything, including those dudes in Kalifornia after their aborted bank robber attempt (that took about a bazillion cops to put down).