Big gun-rights win in TEXAS... Open Carry and Campus Carry
06-10-2015, 09:08 AM
#61
My problem with open carrying has a lot less to do with unwanted attention during mundane everyday life but with the idea that if I am in a confrontation of any kind the existence of a firearm in plain sight on my body will likely serve no other purpose than to escalate the situation. It also, in my opinion, offers a tactical disadvantage. Although you can generally draw faster with an open carry and aggressor can also access your gun more easily and knows that you have it and could more easily anticipate its use. It just seems to offer no real benefit to broadcast that I have a gun on my person.
Reply
0
0
06-10-2015, 09:12 AM
#62
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,488
Total Cats: 4,077
it should go like this:
911: 9-11 what's your emergancy?
caller: there's a guy in TX with a gun on the outside of the pants instead of the inside.
911: is he brandishing it?
caller: no he's peacefully minding his own business.
911: please call us after a crime has been commited so we can show up and shoot a dog later or attack some girls in bikinis.
Reply
0
0
06-10-2015, 09:29 AM
#63
Anyways... where Zimmerman made his mistake was in talking to the police. If he had simply said "I was attacked, he was trying to kill me, and I fired in self defense... and now I'd like some medical attention for my wounds, but don't want to say anything else until tomorrow after I've talked with a lawyer... I'm sure you police officers understand"... then there would have been zero story.
After a shooting, the police are there in an investigative capacity. They are not your friend, they are not your advocate. Be respectful, say as little as possible, get your lawyer ASAP.
Reply
0
0
06-10-2015, 09:30 AM
#64
why?
it should go like this:
911: 9-11 what's your emergancy?
caller: there's a guy in TX with a gun on the outside of the pants instead of the inside.
911: is he brandishing it?
caller: no he's peacefully minding his own business.
911: please call us after a crime has been commited so we can show up and shoot a dog later or attack some girls in bikinis.
it should go like this:
911: 9-11 what's your emergancy?
caller: there's a guy in TX with a gun on the outside of the pants instead of the inside.
911: is he brandishing it?
caller: no he's peacefully minding his own business.
911: please call us after a crime has been commited so we can show up and shoot a dog later or attack some girls in bikinis.
"OMGWTFBBQ, there's a man in the mall with a gun!!! I have my child and he's walking around with a GUN! GUNGUNGGUNGUNGUNGNGUNGUNGUNGUGNUGNGUN!"
*cue SWAT team*
Reply
0
0
06-18-2015, 11:23 AM
#65
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 125
Total Cats: 10
Bunch of cowboys, relying on the false sense of security that showing your dick, err, gun I mean, in public brings piece of mind to all of those in close proximity. It's laughable, frankly. When you glorify something so adamantly, you covet it; you lose the ability to think objectively about that very object or right, and that's dangerous for the collective world; you know, the world we all live in.
So the obvious argument here is that by showing you're armed, people feel safer. Well, guess what? YOU feel safer, not others. At this point in time, post Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Oikos, UC, Northern Illinois, etc, I highly ******* doubt that people feel safer when they see a gun on campus. Again, take a second to not be a selfish dummy, and realize that you feeling safer because STRAPPED, is wayyy different than other people feeling safe. It's a magnificent example of how sometimes collectivism needs to be considered over individualism. By all means, go home and pretend to be Yosemite Sam in your own home, but don't assume that everyone is on your level.
Here's who supports this nonsense with reckless abandon:
The same people who-
1) Foam at the mouth when they feel the 2nd Ammendment is being threatened, when in reality, a ******* 250 year old document doesn't quite apply as literally as it once did, now does it?
2) Think Big Brother is going to come to their homes, and seize their legally purchased firearms.
3) Feel that so long as they have 30 round mags and assault style rifles, that they can protect themselves from the "tyranny" of the Govt; A Govt who is equipped with so many advanced weapons, that it could wipe you out before you even knew they were coming. But yeah, your pea shooter will stop 'em dead...
4) Don't recognize the seemingly obvious fact that they themselves no longer comprise a "well regulated Militia", which is EXACTLY what the National Guard is today in 2015.
All of this from a gun owner, living in a generally anti-gun state. I own and shoot, but find the unapologetic obtusity of those involved in the pro-everything gun related debate, hilarious and scary all at once.
So the obvious argument here is that by showing you're armed, people feel safer. Well, guess what? YOU feel safer, not others. At this point in time, post Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Oikos, UC, Northern Illinois, etc, I highly ******* doubt that people feel safer when they see a gun on campus. Again, take a second to not be a selfish dummy, and realize that you feeling safer because STRAPPED, is wayyy different than other people feeling safe. It's a magnificent example of how sometimes collectivism needs to be considered over individualism. By all means, go home and pretend to be Yosemite Sam in your own home, but don't assume that everyone is on your level.
Here's who supports this nonsense with reckless abandon:
The same people who-
1) Foam at the mouth when they feel the 2nd Ammendment is being threatened, when in reality, a ******* 250 year old document doesn't quite apply as literally as it once did, now does it?
2) Think Big Brother is going to come to their homes, and seize their legally purchased firearms.
3) Feel that so long as they have 30 round mags and assault style rifles, that they can protect themselves from the "tyranny" of the Govt; A Govt who is equipped with so many advanced weapons, that it could wipe you out before you even knew they were coming. But yeah, your pea shooter will stop 'em dead...
4) Don't recognize the seemingly obvious fact that they themselves no longer comprise a "well regulated Militia", which is EXACTLY what the National Guard is today in 2015.
All of this from a gun owner, living in a generally anti-gun state. I own and shoot, but find the unapologetic obtusity of those involved in the pro-everything gun related debate, hilarious and scary all at once.
Reply
0
0
06-18-2015, 11:42 AM
#66
3) Feel that so long as they have 30 round mags and assault style rifles, that they can protect themselves from the "tyranny" of the Govt; A Govt who is equipped with so many advanced weapons, that it could wipe you out before you even knew they were coming. But yeah, your pea shooter will stop 'em dead...
Reply
0
0
06-18-2015, 12:21 PM
#67
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,885
Total Cats: 616
So the obvious argument here is that by showing you're armed, people feel safer. Well, guess what? YOU feel safer, not others. At this point in time, post Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Oikos, UC, Northern Illinois, etc, I highly ******* doubt that people feel safer when they see a gun on campus.
Reply
0
0
06-18-2015, 12:32 PM
#69
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 125
Total Cats: 10
This argument is bad and you should feel bad.
Nobody is talking about open carry on campus. The law is concealed carry only.
Reply
0
0
06-18-2015, 12:32 PM
#70
Bunch of cowboys, relying on the false sense of security that showing your dick, err, gun I mean, in public brings piece of mind to all of those in close proximity. It's laughable, frankly. When you glorify something so adamantly, you covet it; you lose the ability to think objectively about that very object or right, and that's dangerous for the collective world; you know, the world we all live in.
So the obvious argument here is that by showing you're armed, people feel safer. Well, guess what? YOU feel safer, not others. At this point in time, post Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Oikos, UC, Northern Illinois, etc, I highly ******* doubt that people feel safer when they see a gun on campus. Again, take a second to not be a selfish dummy, and realize that you feeling safer because STRAPPED, is wayyy different than other people feeling safe. It's a magnificent example of how sometimes collectivism needs to be considered over individualism. By all means, go home and pretend to be Yosemite Sam in your own home, but don't assume that everyone is on your level.
Here's who supports this nonsense with reckless abandon:
The same people who-
1) Foam at the mouth when they feel the 2nd Ammendment is being threatened, when in reality, a ******* 250 year old document doesn't quite apply as literally as it once did, now does it?
2) Think Big Brother is going to come to their homes, and seize their legally purchased firearms.
3) Feel that so long as they have 30 round mags and assault style rifles, that they can protect themselves from the "tyranny" of the Govt; A Govt who is equipped with so many advanced weapons, that it could wipe you out before you even knew they were coming. But yeah, your pea shooter will stop 'em dead...
4) Don't recognize the seemingly obvious fact that they themselves no longer comprise a "well regulated Militia", which is EXACTLY what the National Guard is today in 2015.
All of this from a gun owner, living in a generally anti-gun state. I own and shoot, but find the unapologetic obtusity of those involved in the pro-everything gun related debate, hilarious and scary all at once.
So the obvious argument here is that by showing you're armed, people feel safer. Well, guess what? YOU feel safer, not others. At this point in time, post Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Oikos, UC, Northern Illinois, etc, I highly ******* doubt that people feel safer when they see a gun on campus. Again, take a second to not be a selfish dummy, and realize that you feeling safer because STRAPPED, is wayyy different than other people feeling safe. It's a magnificent example of how sometimes collectivism needs to be considered over individualism. By all means, go home and pretend to be Yosemite Sam in your own home, but don't assume that everyone is on your level.
Here's who supports this nonsense with reckless abandon:
The same people who-
1) Foam at the mouth when they feel the 2nd Ammendment is being threatened, when in reality, a ******* 250 year old document doesn't quite apply as literally as it once did, now does it?
2) Think Big Brother is going to come to their homes, and seize their legally purchased firearms.
3) Feel that so long as they have 30 round mags and assault style rifles, that they can protect themselves from the "tyranny" of the Govt; A Govt who is equipped with so many advanced weapons, that it could wipe you out before you even knew they were coming. But yeah, your pea shooter will stop 'em dead...
4) Don't recognize the seemingly obvious fact that they themselves no longer comprise a "well regulated Militia", which is EXACTLY what the National Guard is today in 2015.
All of this from a gun owner, living in a generally anti-gun state. I own and shoot, but find the unapologetic obtusity of those involved in the pro-everything gun related debate, hilarious and scary all at once.
Reply
0
0
06-18-2015, 12:39 PM
#71
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,488
Total Cats: 4,077
dangerous for the collective world; you know, the world we all live in.
2) Think Big Brother is going to come to their homes, and seize their legally purchased firearms.
3) Feel that so long as they have 30 round mags and assault style rifles, that they can protect themselves from the "tyranny" of the Govt; A Govt who is equipped with so many advanced weapons, that it could wipe you out before you even knew they were coming. But yeah, your pea shooter will stop 'em dead...
sounds like we need bigger guns.
4) Don't recognize the seemingly obvious fact that they themselves no longer comprise a "well regulated Militia", which is EXACTLY what the National Guard is today in 2015.
All of this from a non-gun owner, living in a generally pro-gun state.
Last edited by Braineack; 06-18-2015 at 12:54 PM.
Reply
0
0
06-18-2015, 12:39 PM
#72
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 125
Total Cats: 10
Have they happened on a mass scale? A scale that warrants such fear? Let me help: No, they haven't.
Sure, you could pick your favorite Libertarian or NRA sponsered"news" site, and piece together something that on the surface looks vaguely like unjustified gun confiscation.
Reply
0
0
06-18-2015, 12:43 PM
#74
If we're going to entertain the idea of a violent conflict between the US Government and the general population, then we should look at analogous conflicts around the world and in history.
And what do we find? Unless the military leaders are absolutely 100% committed to victory no matter the cost, including inflicting massive and wholesale carnage on the civilian population, then a determined civilian population with light arms can be a much bigger problem than expected. Even in rebellions and insurgencies where the military is willing to wipe out civilians, the battle is much tougher than expected. In the US, where you'd likely have a whole lot of soldiers who may question their orders to attack the general population?
The civilian side doesn't have to seek a traditional military victory, it only has to make itself enough of a nuisance to convince the military/government leaders that a more peaceable solution should be pursued.
Reply
0
0
06-18-2015, 12:57 PM
#76
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 125
Total Cats: 10
Oh, absolutely. It's TOTALLY reasonable to think that you owning one, three, or five assault rifles allows you to defend yourself against arguably the most powerful military in the world.
A nuisance is exactly what you'd be, and dealt with as such.
More important than any of your points (some admittedly valid) is the fearfulness that this hypothetical disarmament is nearing, and it's threat warrants the actions and attitudes I touched on earlier. Let's be honest, it's about being "Pro-Me". There's an inherent air of selfishness to this side of the debate, and selfishness in a society where cooperation is paramount does nothing positive. That's where we're at.
This debate and this debate alone is the absolute worst in terms of each side delivering only cherry picked and self-serving, and generally anecdotal points. People search for only what already suits them, and again, there needs to be some objectivity here.
A nuisance is exactly what you'd be, and dealt with as such.
More important than any of your points (some admittedly valid) is the fearfulness that this hypothetical disarmament is nearing, and it's threat warrants the actions and attitudes I touched on earlier. Let's be honest, it's about being "Pro-Me". There's an inherent air of selfishness to this side of the debate, and selfishness in a society where cooperation is paramount does nothing positive. That's where we're at.
This debate and this debate alone is the absolute worst in terms of each side delivering only cherry picked and self-serving, and generally anecdotal points. People search for only what already suits them, and again, there needs to be some objectivity here.
Reply
0
0
06-18-2015, 12:59 PM
#77
Have they happened on a mass scale? A scale that warrants such fear? Let me help: No, they haven't.
Sure, you could pick your favorite Libertarian or NRA sponsered"news" site, and piece together something that on the surface looks vaguely like unjustified gun confiscation.
Sure, you could pick your favorite Libertarian or NRA sponsered"news" site, and piece together something that on the surface looks vaguely like unjustified gun confiscation.
1861....pres Lincoln ordered federal troops to confiscate firearms from civilians (called the confiscation act).
1890... at the height of the American indian relocation, the Lakota people were disarmed. One of those decided he would not disarm. He was deaf. Anyways, most of the tribe were massacred so no big deal. Should have chosen their ethnicity better.
1941.....pres Roosevelt ordered the mass confiscation of firearms from Americans with a particular ethnicity. No big deal as they eventually put the same thousands in concentration camps. Its all good though, it was deemed a "perceived threat."
Reply
0
0
06-18-2015, 12:59 PM
#78
Holy **** you're a dumbass. It's not me with 5 rifles, it's several hundred thousand men with rifles who will fight rather than hand them over, and a government that gets to decide if it's really willing to engage in all out war with a homegrown insurgency.
EDIT: Just to be clear, that's directed at Aram.
EDIT: Just to be clear, that's directed at Aram.
Reply
0
0
06-18-2015, 01:01 PM
#80
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,885
Total Cats: 616
Well, then that's far more reasonable, haha. So long as crazy ******** don't keep legally buying guns, solely because they lack a criminal record yet have manage to fly under the radar in regards to their psychological issues. Though, that's a health care issue for a different thread
It's hard to say if it would have prevented any mass shootings, and it may have led to abuse by anti-gun physicians, but it's now basically a moot point.
Reply
0
0
