And it only took 2 minutes...
No, not really. I just feel that the argument about OCer's being "targeted" is baseless and detrimental to the "point" which is trying to be made.
I have no problem with how any of you carry or your choices why, in fact I don't even care.......it's your life. I do not go to StarBucks(don't drink coffee), nor do I normally(if ever) try and congregate with large groups of people to make a political point(that is relative to the reason, but I usually just contribute with money). That being said....
I have seen the trouble that the "IN YOUR FACE" OC'ing can cause; it was a "loophole" in CA(unloaded open carry without a permit) until the StarBucks trend started happening out there(a few years ago) and now it is illegal. You could blame the politicians, you could blame the voters for allowing a radical democratic super majority to maintain control of the state house and senate, you could blame the OCer's by themselves, or you could even blame it on a combination of everything(timing, location, perception, politics, etc.).
I have also seen how some of the CCer's(the anti-OCer snobs) have lambasted, and otherwise alienated a group of people that want to achieve similar goals; the ability for anybody to carry any way they want for whatever reason they want, and if you don't want that you are also part of the problem(IMHO).
Both sides have valid points and we would be best served by sticking to those points rather than attacking each other with mostly improbable situations that have little to no impact on the real issues of the talking points. Our biggest problem is allowing societal slander against firearms(i.e. hollywood, etc) become political talking points based on no factual information. Of course it is certainly difficult to educate someone on the facts when they don't care due mainly in part because of their personal beliefs(and not necessarily on any actual facts).
In conclusion - welcome to earth....
That reminds me of something I read a couple of weeks ago, "you cannot reason a person out of a position that they did not reason themselves in the first place."
Good points, CD.
Ek
Good points, CD.
Ek
No, not really. I just feel that the argument about OCer's being "targeted" is baseless and detrimental to the "point" which is trying to be made.
I have no problem with how any of you carry or your choices why, in fact I don't even care.......it's your life. I do not go to StarBucks(don't drink coffee), nor do I normally(if ever) try and congregate with large groups of people to make a political point(that is relative to the reason, but I usually just contribute with money). That being said....
I have seen the trouble that the "IN YOUR FACE" OC'ing can cause; it was a "loophole" in CA(unloaded open carry without a permit) until the StarBucks trend started happening out there(a few years ago) and now it is illegal. You could blame the politicians, you could blame the voters for allowing a radical democratic super majority to maintain control of the state house and senate, you could blame the OCer's by themselves, or you could even blame it on a combination of everything(timing, location, perception, politics, etc.).
I have also seen how some of the CCer's(the anti-OCer snobs) have lambasted, and otherwise alienated a group of people that want to achieve similar goals; the ability for anybody to carry any way they want for whatever reason they want, and if you don't want that you are also part of the problem(IMHO).
Both sides have valid points and we would be best served by sticking to those points rather than attacking each other with mostly improbable situations that have little to no impact on the real issues of the talking points. Our biggest problem is allowing societal slander against firearms(i.e. hollywood, etc) become political talking points based on no factual information. Of course it is certainly difficult to educate someone on the facts when they don't care due mainly in part because of their personal beliefs(and not necessarily on any actual facts).
In conclusion - welcome to earth....
I dont see anything i disagree with here. My response was based primarily off the first sentence of your first post. Thanks for clarifying dude.
Waldenville, first link, was in full uniform. This included an OC pistol.
The guy in 3 was probably wrong. The flip side is he walked up on them with a SHOTGUN, and they fed it to him. Could those be the mythical bad guys you spoke of?
Well hell man. Of course it is and that's the whole point. The OC'rs rarely do something as silly as call a ccw'r a retard but the OP is the 3rd or 4th OSA'r to do it since the law went in to effect. The CCW'rs attack us and we respond back with logical reasons why we OC and do our best to rebut the CCW'rs reasons for not. Usually it all works out. This time the OP went too far and you just got caught in the cross fire JB.
As for "snarky". Come on buddy; you were the guy with the sig talking about happily flinging poo. You can take it.
If I see folks acting in a retarded fashion I am bloody well going to bring it up. The person who wrote that article beat me to it and did so in a much nicer way than I would have which is why I am disseminating it. I have all the subtlety and tact of a hammer betwixt the eyes.
I would hope that were I to do something foolish that I would be counseled on the error of my ways and why it's a bad idea. If you keep taking offense to my description of people, a lot of whom seem to be infatuated with OC, who like to carry in such a manner that "I'm going to rub your nose in my rights" as being retards then perhaps you need to reevaluate some things.
Ek
I would hope that were I to do something foolish that I would be counseled on the error of my ways and why it's a bad idea. If you keep taking offense to my description of people, a lot of whom seem to be infatuated with OC, who like to carry in such a manner that "I'm going to rub your nose in my rights" as being retards then perhaps you need to reevaluate some things.
Ek
For the record, i think concealed carriers who act in the same manner as described of oc'ers by the op are likewise retarded.
But im more of a velvet hammer kind of guy.
But im more of a velvet hammer kind of guy.
I'll give you this one. I imagine a criminal would be more likely to shoot an officer than a civilian but that's off topic.
# 3 should read, 3 unarmed men subdue armed assailant.
But yes, Thanks for the examples I asked for, I found them far more informative than speculation
