open carry

[KD5NRH]

A man wearing only a diaper in a WalMart is legal, but I think someone would make that call.

Clearly, you don't go in WalMart at 3AM on bar nights.

[WildBill]

A man wearing only a diaper in a WalMart is legal, but I think someone would make that call.

Clearly, you don't go in WalMart at 3AM on bar nights.

I forgot about that. Actually, I did once and it was scary. I was thinking "where do these people hide during the daytime?"

[45 4 life]

I like that comment about the Doofi. Some of you who condem the idea of training being required might want to reconsider. If OC was to pass and everyone who wanted could strap up and walk the streets can you imagine what would follow.

I can see it in bold print "NO GUNS ALLOWED INSIDE CITY LIMITS" does that sound fimiliar. That is what Wyatt Earp like to post outside towns when he was elected sheriff. Those signs spread like wild fire across this nation at one time. It was not because of the law abiding citizen, it was caused by the ever growing number of Doofi.

We had the right to OC once in this country, and yes I do beleive it was our right then and still is. However we lost that right and some of the blame must be placed on the Doofi of the time. Someone and/or some group has spent dollars and hours (I am sorry to say I do not know who to thank) fighting for our right to carry once again although it is concealed and you must go through the qualification process and obtain a license.

I do not want to give the anti's anymore rocks to throw in our direction and I could see their pile growing. Colorado is another state that allows open carry, but in that state cities have the right to over rule state. Of course Denver as well as many front range towns said not here. From what I understand the did not want licensed concealed carry either. They lost that battle.

Population has certainly increased, the percentage of Doofis has probably gone up, but the biggest issue that I see is firearm training in the home is not what it once was. I would guess that the vast majority of members of this forum and the vast majority of CHL holders owned and operated firearms before CHL passed. I would also bet that the children raised in their homes were educated in firearm safety and use. The anti's and their agenda have been effective in far to many homes and have taken a toll in our society.

When my kids starting getting older, it became harder for me to hide coming and going to the range, or packing for hunting trips the fact that I owned and used guns from their friends. It didn't help when friends would invite them on an outing and they said "no I am going with my dad to shoot at the range". Far to many of these other children were shocked that I owned firearms and allowed my kids to shoot them. Others were immeadiatly drawn to the idea and requsted that I teach them about the shooting sport. Which I was more than happy to do once I had agreement from the parents. My next surprise was the number of parents that came forward with the same request. By the way, those of you that have not started a family yet, but intend to, get ready you are going to see this.

Whether it is CHL or OC I beleive in mandatory training, and yes that means you must have a peice of paper. Gun safety and shooting skills have been bred out of far to many sheeple.

[WildBill]

Whether it is CHL or OC I beleive in mandatory training, and yes that means you must have a peice of paper. Gun safety and shooting skills have been bred out of far to many sheeple.

I agree that proper training is a necessity for safe gun handling, but I disagree that the government should be responsible for mandating, supplying or certifying the training.

[flintknapper]

In my experience, "smart and stupid" show little or no correlation with someone knowing the difference between "right and wrong."

While many criminals, especially those prone to criminal violence, may be stupid, it's usually not because they don't know the difference between right and wrong. It's more often because they simply don't care.

Well, I hate to state the obvious....but that is where the "Stupid" part comes in.

[45 4 life]

Wildbill I should have included that in my post excellant comment. I agree that it should not be in the Goverments hands. The only thing I would like to see from government on the city level would be free firarms training classes. I will not hold my breath for that.

[WildBill]

Wildbill I should have included that in my post excellant comment. I agree that it should not be in the Goverments hands. The only thing I would like to see from government on the city level would be free firarms training classes. I will not hold my breath for that.

It would be interesting to see local law enforcement train civilians in gun handling and safety. It might improve relationships.

[KBCraig]

I know Doofi who run around with guns now. They've done so for decades, long before it was legal. They will not get a CHL because they "don't want to be on a government list", and only buy used guns with serial numbers ground off, for the same reason. They will have a handgun in the vehicle 100% of the time, or in their pocket whenever it suits them. They spout spurious legal advice like the infamous "If you shoot him coming in the window and he falls out, you better drag him inside before the police get there!"

And yet, in spite of such doofosity, they've never shot anyone, never had an accident, never had a negligent discharge. They don't know the law, and might not even know much about guns, but they do know right from wrong.

I don't see a problem there.

[45 4 life]

I know people like that as well (maybe not that part about the serial numbers) that does not mean I want one for back up in a gun fight.

Do you not take acception to any of those items in your post? Do you beleive that it is perfectly legal behavior? Do you beleive that it is their 2nd ammendment right to possess and carry those weapons? It is fine if you do, I do. It is there choice, I wish them luck if they are caught with the missing serial numbers. Everything you said about owning and having firearms at home and in a vehicle is legal. I am also sure that some are carrying in there pocket, their choice.

Do you hold a CHL, if so ask yourself why? Do you have children, if so what are you teaching them about firearms.

Now lets allow OC and put them all on the street with the additional number of first time gun owners, all toting guns around acting like they know what they are doing. Maybe it is me, and I am dead wrong in my thinking, but I am seeing chaos. Then I see chaos becoming ammunition for the anti's then I start seeing the right to OC starting to be taken away, but they will not just go after OC they will come after CHL as well. It will be like the assault weapons ban, everything will be attached.

While we are at it should we require drivers training and licensing. What about the license to fly an airplane.

I am not against OC, I support the 2nd amendment, and I do beleive it is our right to keep and bear arms. I also beleive it is our responsibility to know how and when to use them.

[Moonpie]

This is a double edged arguement.
The anti-CHL crowd howled there would be blood flowing in the streets if CHL passed. That didn't exactly happen.
Now here we are saying the same thing about open carry.
I've known a few real Doofi types who WOULD pack openly if it were allowed.
These same Doofi are to be feared. Not because they are evil but because they are stupid. I'm talking Box of Rocks has more sense stupid.
I am careful to never be anywhere near these armed Doofi, 2nd Amend rights or not!
And there is the rub: How can you tell the difference between a Doofi and a disciplined gun owner/carrier?


The idea of some type of certification similar to the CHL might be appropriate in this case.

[boomerang]

We ALL know there are a LOT of Doofi(doofuss plural) out there.
Do we really want doofi running around with a pistola on their hip?

Never mind pistols. Allowing doofi to vote is much more dangerous.

Does that mean we should enact "reasonable restrictions" such as literacy tests and poll taxes?

[txinvestigator]

We ALL know there are a LOT of Doofi(doofuss plural) out there.
Do we really want doofi running around with a pistola on their hip?

Never mind pistols. Allowing doofi to vote is much more dangerous.

[WildBill]

We ALL know there are a LOT of Doofi(doofuss plural) out there. Do we really want doofi running around with a pistola on their hip?

Never mind pistols. Allowing doofi to vote is much more dangerous.
Does that mean we should enact "reasonable restrictions" such as literacy tests and poll taxes?

The last time I checked it wasn't a crime to be a doofus.

[phddan]

There will be blood in the streets!!!!!

Seems I've heard that tired old argument before. Fear mongoring.

Whole bunch of Doofi CC, drive, practice nursing and doctoring and lawering, etc, etc, etc.

Whole lot of hypocrits that only want things done their way, because they themselves are askeered to OC. More fear mongoring.

Freedom to choose. What a concept.

Dan

[stevie_d_64]

Not to stir the pot any, but it saddens me when even fellow gun owners would want to deny a person's rights because they're scared of what could happen.

It is no wonder that our rights continue to disappear. People want to limit what others can do despite plain English that says, "...keep and bear arms." Not, "keep and hide in their car." Not "keep and bear with the special permission of the chosen elite." An individual's feelings about open carry should be irrelevant. It is supposed to be protected at the highest levels of government.

I suppose it's all a moot point. Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe the American people have the will to push for change back to the foundations of liberty that our forefathers died for. As long as the politicians ensure cheap beer and readily available big screen TVs, the sheep will never care enough about anything else to fight for it.

BINGO!!! On most of this...

I don't even believe that the detractors of this issue would want to deny anything from anyone choosing to do so, if we were allowed to do so in this state (all sarcasm extended to the "allowed" portion of this statement...)

You are not a pessimist Mr. Bradley...You are a realist...

This is all I am going to contribute to this thread this time...My position is well known on this issue...

5 pages in a day and a half...I must be slackin'...