The Case Against Open Carry

Open carry in GA (courtsy cleveland.com)

“The new ‘open carry’ law strikes at the very foundations of civil society and the norms that hold our country together,” David Dillard-Wright writes at chronicle.augusta.com. “Carrying a gun in public is itself already a threat to others, a sign that the person carrying that gun not only seeks to defend him or herself but also goes around looking for an excuse to use it. The politics of paranoia sow seeds of destruction that will harm innocent bystanders, prevent community building and increase suspicion of others.” And there you have it: the case against open carry by someone who couldn’t identify the foundations of our civil society if they read the Constitution a hundred times. Or, I’m thinking, once. But it’s not about civility, is it, really. It’s about incivility. Mr. Wright and his ilk believe that . . .

carrying a gun – openly! – indicates that an armed American is not only seeking to defend himself (thank you, Mr. Wright for acknowledging that much) but looking for an excuse to use the firearm for . . . something else. Something that’s not in society’s best interest.

Intimidation? Yes that, obviously. How can anyone doubt that open carry is meant to be intimidating when [some] people are intimidated by it? But Wright’s suggesting darker deeds. He’s intimating that these OC folk are capable – actively seeking – to perpetuate something far worse. The murder of innocent bystanders? Probably. Preventing community building by opposing the welfare state? Seems so. Infecting others with anti-government “paranoia”? That too.

No matter how you slice it, the author’s arguing (if that’s the Wright word) that anyone who carries a gun openly is guilty of incivility in extremis. They are anti-social outsiders who trumpet their individual rights at the expense of the “it takes a village” statist status quo.

I’m good with that. The last bit, I mean. This, not so much:

I personally think that advocates of “open carry” have seen too many action movies where a good guy with a stubbly beard saves the day by brandishing a high-powered weapon. In this typical American fantasy, guns restore order and right wrongs in a black-and-white moral universe. The costs to innocent life are left out of this fantasy, as are the tacit and explicit racism and misogyny of gun culture. As a truncated version of the Second Amendment is held up as an idol to be worshipped, lives are lost every day in the streets, and, increasingly, in schools and shopping malls.

Anti-gunners are so blinded by their fear and loathing of the natural right to keep and bear arms that they can’t even be bothered to make a coherent argument. Wright reckons he can accuse gun owners of “tacit and explicit racism and misogyny” without providing one shred of evidence to back-up his claim. Ditto the snide remark about the “truncated” Second Amendment – implying that gun rights advocates ignore the prefatory clause because it [allegedly] restricts gun rights to an organized militia.

As for the number of lives lost in schools and shopping malls, Bruce Krafft has proved many times that the word “increasingly” has no business in a sentence quantifying shootings in these locales. Unless, of course, you’re lying. But that’s how Wright and his fellow proponents of civilian disarmament roll. They manipulate not-to-say torture the language to further their agenda, obfuscating the truth about guns.

The new law seems to go one step further, actively encouraging almost anyone to carry a gun almost anywhere. Since our politicians have abdicated their responsibility, now ordinary citizens must speak out against this insane gun culture before even more atrocities happen in the name of personal liberty . . .

Guns don’t make us safer. Bonds of friendship, citizenship and kindness do. To have a more peaceful society, we must live that peace every day in all that we do.

Georgia’s new gun laws do not actively encourage anyone to do anything. They remove previous layers of government infringement on Peach State gun owners’ natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The laws allow residents to exercise their gun rights more freely – as America’s Founding Fathers intended – if they so choose.

In any case, guns do make us safer. Both individually and as a society. A fact that open carriers wish to convey (in their own special way). But if Mr. Wright truly believes that bonds of friendship, citizenship and kindness are the key to a more peaceful society, I suggest he begin by lobbying those recalcitrant politicians to disarm the police. And see where that gets him.

comments

  1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    I open carried after 9/11 happened. In a uber-liberal town. No one cared or said anything.maybe it was the stainless steel SW.357 on my hip. Or maybe people are that clueless when you don’t draw attention to yourself?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      People really are that clueless when you don’t draw attention to your openly visible holstered handgun.

      I carried openly almost everywhere on a recent trip and I would be surprised if even one out of 100 people noticed.

      1. avatar UofUDavid says:

        So true! When I point out a nice gun that someone is open carrying to someone I happen to be with it becomes so difficult, even awkward for them to find what I am taking about. Now if I were to mention a new smart phone someone across the crowded building had in their hand they can find that like a bat catching a bug in the dark.

    2. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      Or maybe people are that clueless when you don’t draw attention to yourself?

      I’ve made it pretty clear over time that I OC as or more often than I CC. It’s rare that I get a reaction at all when OC’ing because most people are simply too involved in whatever they’re doing to notice a f*cking thing going on around them.

      Pair that up with the cellphones the size of minivans that everybody buys a holster for and sticks on their belt at the 3o’clock position and I think about half the people that would otherwise notice I have a firearm on my hip just subconsciously register it as a large cell phone when they make their occasional (read: every 10 minutes or so) glance around at their surroundings.

    3. avatar Piet Padkos says:

      Mr. Diggler, why are you a black hating racist?

      Do you also belong to the KKK?!

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        I know you read, but don’t remember any of your posts. I assume, though, that you know how funny what you just said was. Intentional or otherwise…

      2. avatar Excedrine says:

        Can’t tell if being sarcastic…

        …Or just deliberately stupid.

      3. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        I can tell you are new ’round these here parts

  2. avatar General Zod says:

    I love how they try to make their paranoia justify public policy. I suppose someone who’s physically larger than him is also “looking for trouble” because he feels intimidated by them. He probably sees them as racist and misogynistic as well.

    1. It has been my experience with guys larger than me and guys smaller than most, that the big guys are quiet, polite, and charming. On the other hand…there is a term called “short man syndrome” for a reason. They tend to be snippy, angry, ready to fight at the drop of a hat…like they have something to prove.

      1. avatar SamAdams1776 says:

        Funny you say that! It’s true. I have a friend that I’ve known for decades (Since 1977 actually) who is now a fairly well-known conservative cartoonist that lives in the Greater Baltimore area–used to have a syndicated cartoon called, “Against the Grain”–anyway he’s fairly tall at around 6’1″ and we were in those days (I was in Engineering School) working together at a little corner Grocery store called Li’l Peach. This little punk–probably around 5’5″ was picking a fight with my friend–and I mean REALLY picking for one.

        My friend is a quite a polite, jolly fellow–but sooner or later it got to be a bit much, and to the little pun’s surprise, my friend picked the little punk up by his shirt and pants and hoisted that punk above his head, carried him to the door of the store–kicked the door open and walked up to the the 10-foot snow bank in the parking lot and threw him into the snow bank.

        I asked my friend about this who told me he used to get attacked by little guys all the time. A peculiar thing really!

        v/r

        SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
        Molon Labe
        No Fort Sumters
        Qui tacet consentit
        Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
        Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
        Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “picked the little punk up by his shirt and pants and hoisted [him] above his head …. and threw him into the snow bank.”

          LOL! Thanks for some very welcome comic relief!

  3. avatar KingSarc48265 says:

    Because I wear a seatbelt trying to find something to crash my car into. Makes perfect sense.

    1. avatar Matt in Idaho says:

      looooool, that is hilarious when you put it that way.

    2. avatar Zed says:

      Awesome analogy!

    3. avatar LongPurple says:

      Nice, very nice.

    4. avatar TroyBilt says:

      I never come up with good ones like that. I’ll keep trying.

    5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      +1.

      Or: carry a fire extinguisher looking for a fire to start.

      Or: carry a first-aid kit looking to cause a medical incident.

      1. If Dumbass Dullard-Wrong wants to know what people who carry guns are really thinking, I will tell him. Yesterday on my way home I stopped at the liquor store for some provisions. When I came out with a bottle in one hand and a twelve pack in the other, I noticed a man sitting in a truck parked near me smoking a blunt. As I walked past he yelled “what’s up big playa”. I got in my car quickly and drove away thinking the whole time “I need to get out of here before I might have to shoot someone”. Before I carried a gun, I had no fear of harm because I thought that I was fit and smart enough to avoid danger. I still believe that and I did not start carrying a gun last year at the age of 47 out of fear. The only fear I have is that I might be forced to use my gun but I am prepared to and won’t hesitate when pushed to do so. I and most armed people try to avoid conflict rather than look for it as the idiot in the article assumes.

      2. avatar DickG says:

        Well, just try open-carrying your unregistered mouth into a movie theater.
        .

  4. avatar tfunk says:

    Cue Paul T Chipotle Ninja rant in 3…2…1…

    Oh, and almost forgot…caliber wars are stupid. That is all.

    1. avatar Buzzy243 says:

      Right, let’s just all agree that 380 Auto is the really the best all around self defense caliber and call it a day.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        How dare you ignore the proven extra dangerous .9 mm.

        1. avatar Buzzy243 says:

          Yikes. I admit, that was an egregious oversight. It won’t happen again.

        2. avatar MoveableDO says:

          I pee my pants at the thought of a 40mm…

        3. avatar DickG says:

          Hmmmm. Interesting.
          .
          I never heard of a .9mm before.
          Personally, I don’t think I would use it much.
          .
          Now! The 40mm is something I would (almost) kill to get!
          .

          .

      2. avatar Zed says:

        Always better something than nothing, just know how to use it.

    2. I would like to know why the anti freedom crowd keeps describing any gun as “high-powered”. Compaired to what?…Airsoft?

      1. avatar Stacy says:

        30 years ago or thereabouts, the big gun scare was “high-powered rifles”. I’m guessing the writer is of the age to remember that, and is making a mental mashup of high-powered rifles and assault weapons — high-powered weapons.

        Because that’s the intellectual level on that side of the fence.

    3. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      Cue Paul T Chipotle Ninja rant in 3…2…1…

      I hadn’t even gotten past the headline when I started giggling about the all the holier than thou remarks the good rev was going to be making.

      1. avatar tfunk says:

        Yep, that and he seems to be on a “Caliber wars are stupid…” posting binge lately

        1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          I’m of the opinion that the most dangerous round at your disposal is the one you can consistently put on target. I also haven’t seen any of his recent remarks regarding caliber. I can’t weigh in on that one.

          The guy, on the other hand, displays a laughable level of hubris for a reverend.

  5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “But if Mr. Wright truly believes that bonds of friendship, citizenship and kindness are the key to a more peaceful society, I suggest he begin by lobbying those recalcitrant politicians violent criminals to disarm the police. And see where that gets him.”

    There Mr. Farago … fixed it for you.

    1. avatar Dave says:

      Oh no… If sunshine, rainbows, & happy thoughts are all it takes to end crime & bring about a peaceful society the police should be the first ones to disarm. They can Care Bear Stare criminals in to submission.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      …or volunteer to take a stroll through the south side of Chicago, leading choruses of Kumbayah.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Ending Ayatollah Nixon’s insane, racist War on (some) Drugs will have a dramatic impact on violence of all kinds, but that makes WAY too much sense for the PTB to ever want to let go of their entrenched power/money positions.

        And, unfortunately, I fear that there are some Gunz Nutz who still get off on bashing potheads.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Not sure why you posted that in response to me, but I’m very much a live and let live person. I really couldn’t care less about marijuana.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Not sure why you posted that in response to me,”

          Me, neither. 🙂 I think it’s a case of cross-thread confusion. In fact, I’m not even sure how it got under the main topic here, but it’s my generic end the war on drugs rant; it could show up anywhere. 🙂
          EDIT: Must have been the “Kumbayah.”

  6. avatar Kevin L says:

    I would rebut the racism and misogyny comment with: I’ve net met a gun owner who thinks someone of a certain race or gender should not be armed. I have however heard plenty of antis who think that women should be disarmed. To be fair I don’t think I’ve heard an anti want someone unarmed because of race, but that’s still more sexist than pro 2A people.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      “To be fair I don’t think I’ve heard an anti want someone unarmed because of race…”

      http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f876edd60c/black-nra

      Now you have.

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        back in the old days, she would refer to me and my kind as either “Negroes” or “the help”. But hey, now she is a “funny” (or not) comedian and ultra-liberal who wants to help so badly that she supports mass abortion slaughter, birth control and welfare to make sure we stay in place on the urban plantation and don’t allow our population to get out of control.

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Maybe that slut and her pickaninnies should lobby against Nixon’s War on (some) Drugs, which is the root cause of the devastation.

    2. avatar T M says:

      To a couple points I will agree with the author. I personally find a disproportionate number of people in ‘gun culture’ to be racist and misogynistic to the point where I don’t hang out with a lot of POTG. I also have noticed that quite a few of those same people I know who OC/CC have the “I wish a mother****er would” attitude (i.e. they are out looking for that chance to put a couple holes in someone…”legally”). These are both disturbing and when I meet people like this, I tend to stay away from them.

      They are also hard to put into metrics. Few of these people, if asked on a survey (or even an internet forum), would say they are misogynistic, racist (most likely couldn’t accurately describe those terms), or out looking for someone to blow away. It’s only in those sidebar conversations, the occasional quips, and the confessions in private company that you learn their true nature. While I would say that unfortunately, there’s a silent majority of people that fall into these categories within gun culture. But I have little metrics to prove this, just a personal opinion and observation.

      And you know what? We don’t make laws based off perception of cultural attitudes. Even if I could some how prove that 95% of all gun owners and RKBA advocates were racist, sexist, homophobes this is no reason to advocate for a change in laws. …it would be a good sense for women, people of color and LGBT individuals to keep and bear arms (and guess what: MANY DO FOR THE EXACT REASON).

      Even taking every racist, sexist DudeBro(TM) or wannabe Wyatt Earp’s AR-15 and G19 is not going to solve the problem of who they are. If anything, you just gave them an excuse to justify their paranoia, fear and desire for violence. Want to kick off a violent uprising and right-wing military junta that will undo the last 50 years of social progress overnight? Start taking guns.

      Other than that tiny point, Mr. Wright’s entire assertion falls apart as the OP said. Yes, many times, I perceive some of those open carrying do so because it is a compensation for something else. Just like the suburbanite with the 30″ mud tires on their lifted F350 that belches black soot like a 19th-century coal train.

      But the thing is, so far, none of them have shot up a school or Chipolte. I don’t think any of them have loomed menacingly over the gay couple having tacos while fingering the safety on their 1911 out of holster. If they have, well, that would be grounds for arrest or lethal force (depending on the situation). The truth is, whether they have a heart of gold or a bigoted tool, they are very, very unlikely to actually commit a crime. The criminal psychopath isn’t an OC advocate. The guy parading around with his AR15 on his back isn’t going to be the guy that shoots up the theater. So, instead of trying to solve a problem that aren’t there, that we can’t legislate away, let’s try addressing problems that we can.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        There is some sexism, racism and antisemitism among POTG. However, it pales into insignificance when compare to the sexism, racism and antisemitism among the community of gungrabbers and wingnuts. There is no more vicious crew of scumbags than the new American left.

        1. avatar rlc2 says:

          This is an observable fact, sadly, validated daily in the StateRunMedia, and the comments section at NYT, WAPO, or like that cesspool Raw Story, and the newest floater there, tbogg.

        2. avatar T M says:

          As someone who typically hangs out with ‘lefties’ (a misnomer, but that’s what you would call them in your two-dimensional / black & white world), it is clear you don’t understand what institutional racism and misogyny are.

          Let me guess, this is a reference to ‘reverse racism/sexism’ when you get called out as supporrting social power structures?

        3. avatar rlc2 says:

          oh. kay.

          I’ll bite, TM.

          I just love all these code words, from the po-mo, foucaultian, tranzi-nazi gibbersh spouted by “lefties”.

          But, I am confused, its complicated, and since I never went to Berkley or attended a workshop for OWS, I am still catching up. Could you elaborate more?

          I especially need your mind reading about who I am, my “privilege” and all that.
          Please. I’m so lost without you, and tbogg.

        4. avatar Geoff PR says:

          T M wrote:

          “As someone who typically hangs out with ‘lefties’ (a misnomer, but that’s what you would call them in your two-dimensional / black & white world),”

          Wow. My “two-dimensional / black & white world”?

          Talk about pidgin-holing someone. I thought those on the left abhorred labels.

          I hate to break the news to you, T M. While there are racists, homophobes, and their ilk on the right, The most vile, vicious and raw hatred comes from those on the Progressive political spectra.

          A Progressive is a completely different critter than a Democrat, and far more dangerous. The Progressives are the engine of the gun control movement.

      2. avatar pod says:

        The phrase, “I wish a motherf–ker would…” sums up the worst kid of POTG in my book. I want to shake them and tell them, “No, you don’t want them to…”

        Because if they do, your life as you know it is over, even if you are 100% in the right.

        This article sums up quite well what happens when you shoot someone.

        http://folioweekly.com/Hot-Bullets-Cold-Truth,5556

        1. avatar rlc2 says:

          Thanks pod. Thats a very useful article. I like thr tip for “the cop card” to pull out, post shooting.
          I’m going to copy those statements on back of attorneys biz card, when I get ccw permit.

  7. avatar John E> says:

    It is these same arguments, that on a macro level, have left the world a much more chaotic and volatile place. Unfortunately, dialogue and love will get little respect by criminals, ISIS, or Boko Haram. There is black and white in the world, there is good and evil, and very often there is only peace through strength.

  8. avatar Paul53 says:

    Dear David Dillard-Wright. You take great liberties in expressing your own interpretations of open carry of firearms and then projecting them as if they were universal and proven facts. I’m a Registered Nurse, and would urge you to explore your feeling through counseling. Publishing your fears and opinions is irresponsible at the least, and more significantly reflects on your own internal environment. Paul M, RN

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Perhaps you can work on his metrosexual need for two last names.

      1. avatar Hinshelworld says:

        Some of us were given two last names by our parents,and out of respect for them keep both.

        But sure,way to stereotype. Those kinds of generalizations are things that we should avoid as they undermine our arguments.

      2. avatar lizzrd says:

        Now you’re going to rag on people who were given hyphenated names?

        1. avatar Call Security! says:

          Well if he doesn’t have a Latino/a to beat up on, he’ll start queer-bashing. Haters gonna hate ; )

          The existence of guys like neiowa is, in and of itself, a good argument for gun ownership and strong self-defense training among racial minorities and gay people.

  9. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    “The new ‘open carry’ law strikes at the very foundations of civil society and the norms that hold our country together,”

    Actually I would say that the attacks on our civil liberties by the anti-gun community are tearing apart the foundations of civil society.

    1. avatar Bob20 says:

      Agreed. And I might add that OC has been a normal.part of society in the US far longer than this anti-OC BS.

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    I’ve seen open carry in Illinois for years. Never gave it a thought. EVERYONE assumes you are a guard or a cop. NOW if you were walking around with a rifle slung over your shoulder instead of a holstered pistol…who knows? I’m with Dirk on this.

    1. avatar TJG says:

      Wait… we can’t OC in Illinois…

      1. avatar Cknarf says:

        I’ve heard of some smaller communities that are more tolerant of firearms.

        If I tried that here in Springfield, I’d be arrested in minutes.

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      I’ve often wondered to myself whether I would open carry if I could (as opposed to concealed). There are valid arguments both ways, but for me, an IWB holster is sort of a pain to put on and take off, I hate going around with my shirt untucked, and I really don’t feel a need to hide it.

      Ignorant hoplophobes like David Dillard-Wright will eventually be seen as the lunatic fringe they are, as open carrying becomes more common.

      He also has that hyphenated surname (Dillard-Wright) undermining his credibility. If you can’t decide what name to use, your decision-making ability is suspect.

      1. avatar Hinshelworld says:

        Some of us were given two last names by our parents, and out of respect for them keep both.

        But sure, way to stereotype. Those kinds of generalizations are things that we should avoid as they undermine our arguments.

        1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          I would point out that most kids (and women) have taken the names of the male head of family for thousands of years and that tracing lineage almost exclusively follows along the paternal bloodline, but that would make me a misogynist, I’m sure.

          Whether “some of us” CHOOSE to break traditionally accepted behavior or not is irrelevant. There will always be social resistance to the breaking of cultural norms. I can speak on this subject, I’ve been “shacking up” with my girlfriend while living in the South for 13 years. We also have two children and come from families that are very involved in their churches (Lutheran for me and Southern Baptist for her.)

          You shouldn’t fault him for being uncomfortable with it any more than you should your parents for doing it in the first place. There’s nothing wrong with breaking the norm, but a hyphenated name ISN’T traditional. Embrace it, deal with it, or change it.

        2. avatar lizzrd says:

          Where did he say hyphenated names were traditional? He was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to stereotype someone based on a hyphen in their name.

        3. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          @lizzard

          There was no stereotype made, aside from the one I made jest and in reference to myself. Instead the original comment was made in regard to questioning one’s decision-making capacity. It wasn’t totally fair, but some of us picked up on it being sarcastically made.

          I, in turn, pointed out that while offense may have been taken there was a reason for the statement being made in the first place. You don’t get to behave outside socially acceptable and then complain when there is social resistance to it.

          My post was pointing out cause/effect and provided example, not criticism. Ride to the rescue somewhere else, none was needed here.

  11. avatar Alan Longnecker says:

    A well regulated militia (made up of farmers, craftsmen, etc.), being necessary to the security of a free state (by rising up to destroy tyrants), the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    1. avatar SamAdams1776 says:

      Yep, that is pretty much it!

      SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
      Molon Labe
      Qui tacet consentit
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
      Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset

  12. avatar Bob says:

    Anyone who likes guns hates women. Wow, just wow.

    1. avatar Hobbez says:

      And racist. Don’t forget that part.

  13. avatar Bob says:

    Those that use ad-hominems, and this article is nothing but, does so because they lack any reasoned argument. In other words, they lost the argument.

  14. avatar Gabe says:

    What I find comical is the assertion that open carrying is somehow racist or mysogynistic. Considering the first gun laws in this country were made to keep guns out of the hands of “those dark people” and most anti’s would rather a woman be raped than defend herself with a gun, gun laws themselves are racist and misogynistic.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      So why do you hate minorities and women so much?

      racist!

      Note to the knuckledraggers: the above is sarcasm used in a poor and probably failed attempt at humor…

  15. avatar DTAL says:

    I always laugh at those who are paranoid about normal people carrying hunks of polymer and metal, who call others paranoid.

    Funny how they’re comfortable seeing police officers open carry. Apparently to them, governments (you know, those organizations responsible for genocide, mass murder, and violence on a staggering scale) having a monopoly on violence is the sign of a “civil society.” Some former Soviets and modern Africans may disagree.

    Given the way leftists conduct themselves these days, not a one of them has the right to talk about “civil society,” least of all the author of this wholly uncivil rant of ad hominems. American society was civil until the modern leftist came along.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      Yep; up until the war on alcohol( Prohibition) the murder rate in this country was 1 or 2 per hundred thousand. This was when guns were sold in hardware stores as just another tool without background checks and people could order guns out of catalogs and have them delivered to their homes.

      Then the “progressive” agenda was pushed in the early 20th century and the violence began to rise in this country and mass murder on a world wide scale became the norm.

    2. avatar Alpo says:

      “Some former Soviets… may disagree.”

      Yup.

      I know a cop married to a girl who’s family left Soviet Russia when she was around 10.
      She can’t stand to see her husband in his uniform. Even as a little kid, she knew what scum the authorities were.

      Meanwhile, that’s exactly the kind of world Mayor Mike and S.Watts would have us living in.

  16. avatar brian says:

    Look, it’s not hard people.

    To the anti’s, anyone who carries a gun is a mass shooter in potentia.

    They know that they are all mentally unstable and would shoot over the smallest slight, real or imagined. And they also know that they’re better than us troglodyte gun owners.

    Which means that we’re all just one insult away from shooting everything in sight, all the time. I mean there’s a hundred thousand shootings every hour in the US because of it!

    1. avatar Bob20 says:

      And I must be the only survivor from Arizona, because you know, many people carry here with and without a permit and most people own guns here. In reality, I see OC’ers a lot, and you know what, it is okay. Sure, I cringe when someone’s holster clashes with what they are wearing, but it is okay. (Common guys, a Kimber should not be dressed in cheap nylon.). 🙂

    2. avatar SamAdams1776 says:

      Yep! The conclusion I came to awhile back! I guess it’s a case of projection.

      v/r

      SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
      Molon Labe
      Qui tacet consentit
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
      Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset

      1. avatar DickG says:

        “Look, it’s not hard people. To the anti’s, anyone who carries a gun is a mass shooter in potentia. ”
        .
        Yep!
        .
        Same as a person with a mouth. They are definitely a potential shouter of “FIRE” and should be banned from all theaters or other crowded, confined places.
        .

  17. avatar John L. says:

    Some people may feel intimidated by or afraid of guns regardless of situation, but if I am not open-carrying with the intent of being intimidating, that’s not my fault.

    Nor should it be my problem … any more than it should be my problem if someone doesn’t like the clothes I’m wearing.

    (Circumstances do matter … For instance at a black-tie event, I really should be carrying a Walther in a shoulder rig rather than a Super Redhawk on my hip. But that’s a fashion faux pas, really.)

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      I plan on carrying my Nano when I am all tuxed up for my son’s upcoming wedding.

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        I’ll be married in a little over two weeks, and I will not be the only person carrying at my wedding. Of the twenty-five or so people attending a half dozen or so will be armed (including the officiant.) One of my more confused friends recently made a snide remark about how I’m so “ate up” I’ll probably be carrying when I take my vows. My reply was “Not only will my wife and I be carrying, but the pastor will be as well. Hide yo’ kids!”

        1. avatar Nick D says:

          The best kind of wedding is one where everybody has a shotgun, not just the father of the bride.

        2. avatar Gene says:

          @Nick D – That’s called “agreement”.

  18. avatar CDeb says:

    So Mr Wright asserts that open carriers are “looking for an excuse to use” their weapons, and then in the VERY. NEXT. SENTENCE. calls them paranoid.

    What marvelous self-awareness.

  19. avatar Jeff says:

    The opinions of men with hyphenated last names are generally predictable.

  20. avatar former water walker says:

    My point TJG is those GUARDS AND COPS don’t give anyone a second thought…and if I walked illegally down the street ( with a holstered pistol) NO one would care.:-)

  21. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Mr. Wright is part of the Brotherhood of Ya Ya Victimhood, and he wants us all to be pre-victimized as well. If Mr Wright finds the Georgia gun laws not to his liking, he is free to move to another state. I hear the population of New Jersey is shrinking….

  22. avatar rick marlar says:

    I am just fine with the open carry of handguns the open carry of long guns, not so much. My reason I see cops everyday they are carrying handguns it does not alarm me but if I see a cop coming down the street with a rifle or shotgun I am on alert immediately.

    1. avatar Matt in Idaho says:

      I understand. And even though I might ‘feel’ the same, I think it is important not to forget, these are all just tools and other than our ‘feelings’ there is really no evidence to demonstrate that anyone should be more comfortable seeing a hangun as opposed to a long gun being oc.

      This is the same type of logic that has made pistol grips, bayonet lugs, and the shoulder go-up thingie’s so intimidating.

      1. avatar SamAdams1776 says:

        A rifle, slung on the back or in the front as often carried by military is a non threatening stance–worry when they put the stalk into their shoulder–but if there are other armed folk around (as really there ought to be*) that person will find quite a few guns pointed at himself.

        *An armed society is a polite society–Robert Heinlein

        v/r

        SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
        Molon Labe
        Qui tacet consentit
        Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
        Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset

    2. avatar Alpo says:

      I get that. But long guns can really only be carried openly.

      So that distinction becomes: No carrying of long guns.

      You’d then have to start carving out time, place and purpose exceptions. Which leads to, at least, two things:

      A. You’d get a patchwork of regulations, often poorly written and even more poorly interpreted, which can easily put a law-abiding citizen in a jam.

      And (more importantly):

      B. You’d be conceding to the elected critters the power to ban the carry of firearms in certain circumstances. And you can rest assured that it won’t stop at “No longs except while doing sportsman stuff”.

    3. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Yes, reasonable since police traditionally didn’t go for the long guns unless they expected trouble. In that context it would be foolish not to perk up and scan your surroundings if you see cops with ARs. Though, these days it is getting more and more common to see cops with rifles without an obvious reason.

    4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      “Open carry of long guns” != “cop running down the street with a rifle in his hands”

      I maintain that the fear of someone walking down the sidewalk with a long gun slung over the shoulder on his back is utterly irrational.

  23. avatar scooter says:

    In my car you can see my seatbelts openly displayed. Smoke detectors are clearly evident throughout my home. If I get pulled over I gladly display my insurance card. The lock on my front door is obvious. Do you think I’m looking for an excuse to use these things? Give us a little credit for self control.

  24. avatar tdiinva says:

    No honest man has a needconceal his gun. By banning open carrying of firearms we make honest men behave like criminals.

    1. avatar T M says:

      Strongly disagree. There are many reasons to keep your piece out of sight. One, I don’t want to be the first one shot. Two, I don’t like the attention it draws.

      That said, I occasionally open carry depending on the circumstances. One of my most common, public OCing routines is when traveling across the state at night and I am in business casual attire.

      When I am at dinner at an upscale restaurant? Normal shopping during daylight hours? Nah, I’d like to keep under covers. It also means I can avoid being asked to leave by less enlightened store owners and shop keeps. In my state that little ‘no guns’ sign don’t mean a thing.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “One, I don’t want to be the first one shot.”

        Can you cite a case where this has actually happened? That an OC-er was shot first by a violent offender because he was OC-ing?

        ” Two, I don’t like the attention it draws. “

        This statement contradicts what a LOT of OC-ers say: “No one notices.”

        I’ve OC’d, and could not tell anyone noticed at all.

        1. avatar T M says:

          There are many cases where individuals have their gun taken away from them (including law enforcement, and a Navy Petty Officer of the Watch in the recent Norfolk, USS Mahan shooting) or were targeted first because the perp knew they had a weapon. It’s only logical that if you want to be a successful ‘bad guy’, first step is eliminate potential threats. We have the concealed carrier in Las Vegas killings who was shot in the back after he revealed his weapon (now ‘open’).

          I do occasionally open carry and I have been asked to leave a couple of places because ‘they didn’t want guns’ (one of these places was a redneck, dirt race track with a demolition derby going on. In all fairness, an older women went and chewed out ‘station management’ for them asking me to leave), and I have had cops draw weapons because someone called in a report that I had a gun (I did not, I was 17 at the time). People do notice, but most don’t like to go up to a guy with a gun and say “hey, why do you have a gun?” Usually, if anything, they just call the police or management.

          No one has ever asked me to leave my conceal carry behind.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “There are many cases where individuals have their gun taken away from them (including law enforcement, and a Navy Petty Officer of the Watch in the recent Norfolk, USS Mahan shooting) or were targeted first because the perp knew they had a weapon. “

          Cite one case where a non-uniformed citizen was shot first in a violent encounter because they were OC-ing.

          The three examples you gave involved UNIFORMED open carriers. Could be argued the uniform and what it represents attracted the attention of the offender.

          People OC quite a bit, apparently. Yet, we don’t hear constant stories of blood running the streets from OC-ers getting shot first in robberies and their guns being taken away and used against them.

          It’s a nice piece of Geezer Science…oft repeated, but hardly substantiated by actual data.

          If you have a citation where it can be shown that a OC-er was shot first precisely because they had a gun, that’s a starting point.

          There has been at least one case (in Georgia) where an armed robbery was ‘foiled’ because the offenders saw an OC’d handgun on a customer’s hip and relocated – chose not to rob that place (Waffle House, if memory serves) because a customer / victim was visibly armed.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        If open carry is the norm then you won’t be targeted since they would have to target evetybody in sight.

        1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          That would assume that open carry is the norm.

          It’s commonly agreed upon that spree shooters and criminals in general follow the path of least resistance. Gun-Free Zones and “disarmed” populations present higher gun-violence rates than places and people who exercise the right to carry.

          By that logic; a would-be murderer, armed robber, hostage taker, etc is disinclined to engage when presented with the fact that he/she is going to encounter armed resistance without a doubt. Giving them the opportunity to establish a target hierarchy isn’t the issue, that they have to engage armed resistance is deterrent enough. Violence statistics in areas where open carry is not only allowed, but socially acceptable backs this up (think rural America versus urban/suburban America.)

          Or open carry is a symptom and not the cause. Either way, normalizing open carry is NOT a threat to our cause or anyone’s safety.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Giving them the opportunity to establish a target hierarchy isn’t the issue, that they have to engage armed resistance is deterrent enough. “

          EXCELLENT point. Thanks!

        3. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          @JR

          Thanks! And greetz from Wake Co!

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Thanks! And greetz from Wake Co!”

          Cool! We get over that way about once a month. I’m downriver of you a bit… 😉

  25. avatar former water walker says:

    I don’t live in a tiny town. I live south of Chicago a mile from Indiana. In Cook County,Illinois. HOWEVER I don’t recommend you test out my observation. For years the Illinois carry folks said you could carry your unloaded gun in a fanny pack with separated ammo. I didn’t test THAT out either in the Land of Lincoln.

  26. avatar Alpo says:

    Leaving aside my total support for open carry, I have to ask: Why disrespect such fine leather?

    Or, for the operationally operating operators among us, why de-tactify such PERFECTION® with a piece of organic material?

  27. avatar Bob Wall says:

    Pleated Dockers – now there’s your (fashion) felony…!!! 😀

  28. avatar Mediocrates says:

    I might add that this guy is a professor in the Religion department at the nearby university in Aiken, South Carolina.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      And out the advance the progress of mankind. Check out this guy’s thesis. Har snark

      I’ll guess one of the atheists now employed in college “religion depts.”

      http://www.amazon.com/Ark-Possible-Animal-World-Merleau-Ponty/dp/0739129376

      1. avatar Mediocrates says:

        ok, the philosophy department them….

      2. avatar Gene says:

        I’m going in and looking at his other works. Where did I put my earth shoes and patchouli…..Hopefully, I won’t get a contact high.

  29. avatar DisThunder says:

    “Bonds of friendship, citizenship and kindness do. To have a more peaceful society, we must live that peace every day in all that we do.”
    Yes, because calling people who own guns racist and misogynist, simple minded and dangerous is demonstrating how much friendship and kindness you’re all about.
    Well, allow me to address Mr. Dillard-Wright:
    I don’t want your friendship. I don’t need your kindness. You have no bearing on my citizenship. As far as peace goes, in the words of Corey Taylor: “Take those fingers, tape them up, and shove them up your ass, and carry on. But don’t try it now, because peace is gone.”

  30. avatar Zed says:

    OC of pistols is overlooked by so many people, they are in their own worlds, have their faces stuck to the cell phone, etc. But those are the same reasons why people become victims, they do not pay attention to their surroundings.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      ^^^ What this guy said

  31. OC is not the problem.

    The problem is the OC fanatics going full retard.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      It took longer than expected for the arbiter of who is/isn’t a retard to show up.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        He was busy telling god not to appear in the open.

      2. avatar rlc2 says:

        Ok, for the record, I agree with Paul, if not the way he says it.

        There is a way to demonstrate open carry, whether handgun or long gun, that is effective, and
        there are ways that are not, PR-wise. Whats worse, that example becomes meat for the anti-gunners to feed the dogs at the StateRunMedia.

        Strategy, vs tactics, perhaps.

        In between is the gray zone, in which of course everyone is entitled to their opinion…
        IMHO sometimes its so obviously a bad idea, how to and where, that the term ” OCtard” is useful.

        Heh…let t he circular firing squad begin…

        ps: Paul, as I recall there were open carriers at the Last Supper?
        The Roman Gladius was the assault rifle of that age of technology, in the right hands…

        What are your thoughts on that? Might be a good article for TTAG…?

  32. avatar DerryM says:

    Recently, I watched a TV show that was analyzing/speculating about what would happen if a major pandemic hit the World. It focused on an American Family of three living in a major city. Once the dying from the pandemic hit a major point where medical facilities, retailers and civil authority and services were seriously broken-down (about ten days to two weeks), the major thing that happened was that people, in general, reverted to intense armed savagery, looting, murder, rape and pillage.

    My point being Mr. Dillard-Wright’s hypothesis that Society is better served by “bonds of friendship, citizenship and kindness and unicorns” is total bovine scatology. HE and anyone who follows his advice would be among the first to be savaged and likely murdered for a few cans of beans or plastic bottles of water. It is the organization of Society that keeps us civil, but take away that order, convenience, civil authority and (most importantly) bounty and availability of goods and services, and the facade of Society shatters into chaos and savage anarchy. Therein lies the short-sighted stupidity of the progressive liberal mindset like Dillard-Wright’s.

    1. avatar SamAdams1776 says:

      An excellent and accurate assessment of humanity adn “civil society.”

      v/r

      SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
      Molon Labe
      Qui tacet consentit
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
      Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        @SamAdams1776 Thank-you kindly, Sir.

        BTW- I like your nom de plume. GREAT CHOICE!!!

  33. avatar DickG says:

    “Carrying a gun in public is itself already a threat to others, a sign that the person carrying that gun not only seeks to defend him or herself but also goes around looking for an excuse to use it. The politics of paranoia sow seeds of destruction that will harm innocent bystanders, prevent community building and increase suspicion of others.”
    .
    Plain and simple recycled hogwash of the type typically spewed by the Liberal-us Progress-EVIL-us mouth controlled by an intellectually and emotionally immature brain incapable of rational thought.

    What else is there to say?
    .

    .

  34. avatar Bob Watson says:

    Do not be so hard on little Davy, he is very frightened. Mother Hysteria scared him with tales of monsters under his bed and wild beasties in his closet. He believes they are real and coming to get him. But, his night terrors about guns will not last. I suspect his attention span is rather short. His head is full of fantasies of evil men pushing their racist and misogynist agenda on an endless stream of issues.

  35. avatar BlueBronco says:

    Since cops are open carrying guns, the must be looking for an excuse to use them.

    ***Sarcasm Warning***

    1. avatar T M says:

      Sarcasm, or an often lethal reality?

      1. avatar SamAdams1776 says:

        Well, some actually do! Usually (though not ALWAYS) with no negative consequences.

        v/r

        SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
        Molon Labe
        Qui tacet consentit
        Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
        Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset

  36. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

    “…but also goes around looking for an excuse to use it.”

    The sheer effort antis put into misunderstanding both the issue, and those that carry and own guns is staggering to me.

    1. avatar DickG says:

      ““…but also goes around looking for an excuse to use it.”
      .
      Just like people with unregistered, uncovered mouths should not be allowed in theaters least they yell “FIRE” when no fire is present.
      .

  37. avatar Doug Focker says:

    The open display of weapons is not supposed to be civil. It is supposed to be threatening, and always has been. This is as old as humans living in settlements – the display of weapons is a display of power, lethal power over other people nearby. Whether you think this is good or bad is the only thing at issue.

    1. avatar Gene says:

      I’m not sure I agree with it being inherently threatening. I’d suggest it’s more displaying a capability for use. IIRC, the willingness to initially use force was indicated by handshake or salute in them olden days.

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        Opinions vary on the origins of the salute/wave and handshake. Many believe this began as a display of a lack of intent to do harm/absence of arms (a soldier, knight, man-at-arms raises his right hand above the shoulder or presents it to demonstrate he isn’t carrying and not in a position to quickly bear.) Others believe it to be more a chest-bumping demonstration of machismo

        I think we can agree that either way, the implication is that a full-blown confrontation is not the goal when we engage in this sort of behavior.

        In regards to Doug, I don’t entirely agree. A display of arms shouldn’t be construed threatening, but the implied willingness to deploy should be noted. Think of various brightly colored poisonous critters; the colors and patterns are a warning, not a threat. Don’t try to put me in your mouth and we’ll get along just fine.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      If I may amend your statement: the display of arms is only threatening to criminals*, as it represents an unwillingness of victimhood. To law-abiding citizens, the display of arms is merely a display of civility.

      * …and to ignorant, irrational, paranoid hoplophobes. But I really couldn’t care less about the offended sensibilities of the perpetually aggrieved.

    3. avatar SamAdams1776 says:

      Your confusing a holstered gun with an erect penis (or in our society, any display of the penis is a threatening reminder of male hegemony–according to feminists, anyway).

      No–worry only about it when it is being drawn -and not even then if it’s being used in a righteous cause because of a real threat that has already taken place!

      v/r

      SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
      Molon Labe
      Qui tacet consentit
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
      Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset

  38. avatar Ralph says:

    Mr. Dildo-Wright is just Plain-Wrong.

    1. avatar Mediocrates says:

      now, now. Mr. Dildo-W has the “I know what other people are thinking/feeling gene”. We need to turn his special powers to universal good.

  39. avatar Gene says:

    Virginia is working out just fine. We have been for a while. In fact, if this keeps statists like Dillard-Wright out, we’re better off.

  40. avatar Lars says:

    I support open carry but you won’t find me open carrying. OC to me is like driving a auto with 20″ rims that spin, or sporting a green mohawk, or wearing short shorts, or holding a sign saying “the end is near”. Most OC people want the attention whether positive or negative, some carry open because it’s more comfortable or their preferred carry gun is too large to conceal. While there is a good number open carrying to promote positive firearm protest and ergonomics the majority that carry are just looking for attention because of their personality type. Carrying openly makes you a target for everyone and anyone, the loss of concealment, surprise and anonymity make you more vulnerable to those people whom your reason for carrying a firearm exists in the first place. Normal citizens, the majority of the people you encounter daily, are nothing more than afraid, aware, surprised and careful when they see someone open carrying, although some may suspect you as a criminal and call police, one of the other downsides to OC. Some may actually think you are a cop, most will just notice you and move on. But those people who are criminals, who can see your firearm, you are a known threat to them and if their purpose is to commit a crime there and now you will be the first person they will take care of. If I was going to commit a violent act and just as I’m about to begin I see a open carry citizen I would target them first and foremost, maybe even use their weapon after I’ve killed or wounded them. My point is if attention is what you seek it’s attention that you will get, the good, the bad and the ugly.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Most OC people want the attention whether positive or negative,”

      Do you have data to support that mathematical assertion, or is this just blind speculation pulled out of one’s rear end?

      Or is it clairvoyance that gives you insight into the minds of most OC people?

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        My guess is that it’s less of the things you mentioned and more FUD. Absolutely nothing he said has a sound argument or data to back it up.

        If what he says were true, open carriers would be murdered as often or more frequently than the disarmed population due to the fact that violent criminals would target them specifically before they went on their killing sprees. To the contrary, however, spree killers commit their crimes in places they know NOBODY is armed or presents an immediate threat to hem.

        Instead we get repeated examples of criminals either breaking contact when presented with armed resistance or simply turning their own weapon on themselves. And the types of folks that use terms like “Chipotle Ninja” have enough balls to say that after the shooting starts and there are already victims they’ll have the element of surprise cuz tactical!

        Personally I’d rather just put it out there for any random scumbag that I’m going to be shooting back if they act up…

    2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “If I was going to commit a violent act and just as I’m about to begin I see a open carry citizen I would target them first and foremost, maybe even use their weapon after I’ve killed or wounded them. “

      This assumes everyone that OC’s has the situational awareness of a turnip.

      Yes, we can all be surprised…non-carriers, OC-ers and CC-ers. It’s a dangerous trap to assume 100% situational awareness.

      But, it’s equally dangerous, for the attacker, to assume that the OC-er has ZERO situational awareness AND zero retention skills.

      To put it into the language you used here…if I were OC-ing and some nutjob came up to me trying to steal my gun, I’d consider that a deadly force situation (as I was taught it was in the SC CJA) and we’d be in “that kind of fight.”

      So, such an attacker would be rolling the dice with his life trying that tactic. My suggestion is that you listen to perhaps one of William Aprill’s fine lectures or interviews on the subject of “thin slicing” decision making as it pertains to violent actors and victim selection.

      Really…one would think OC-ers are getting killed left and right every day to believe some of this stuff.

  41. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    Armed troglodyte here checking in. Guess in Mr. Hyphenated’s world I am just a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. He is correct-I am waiting to go off the job and get home safely to my family.

  42. avatar Mark says:

    I lived in Arizona from 1974 to 1993. Open carry was the norm there, especially in small towns and on the outskirts of Phoenix. I can remember toting a .357 Magnum Dan Wesson revolver into a convenience store out to the north of Scottsdale and not seeing the store clerk so much as blink at it. As long as it was holstered, it was fine. The Smitty’s Big Town stores would politely ask you to let them store it in their safe while you shopped in their stores.

    What we desperately need are some comfortable, even fashionable, open carry holster rigs. All I have been able to find are duty holsters, which are bulky and uncomfortable – to say nothing of the fact that they make you look like some wannabe cop – and a few field holsters that I don’t much care for. Ninety percent of the holsters being sold nowadays are for concealed carry, which is just ridiculous.

    What’s really ridiculous is that the states have contrived concealed carry laws and permits (that incidentally cost money) to “let” people exercise their already-constitutionally-guaranteed right to “bear” (carry) arms. It’s like a license to breathe. I have never had one, and I will never get one – just on principal.

    David Dillard-Wright is nothing more, and nothing less, that a closet communist who wants everybody except for the police and military to turn in their weapons so that the state can feel safe while it dictates the terms of life to its subjects. It has nothing to do with “societal norms.”

  43. avatar Full Cleveland says:

    Nothing new here. Moral outrage, fear mongering and predicting TEOTWAWKI are hauled out whenever the statists loose control of the social order. Our revolution, the emancipation of slaves, women’s right to vote, entering WW ll, The Beatles, the civil rights act of 1964 all struck “..,at the very foundations of civil society and the norms that hold our country together,” ZZZzzz…

  44. avatar Gordon Wagner says:

    Open carry encourages civility.

    1. avatar DickG says:

      An armed society is a polite society.
      .

  45. avatar Calvin says:

    Because F YOU!, that’s why.

    It isn’t articulate but there is something subtle underneath the abuse. I didn’t ask if anyone cared. That should have told you something.

  46. avatar What Me Carry says:

    My girlfriend lived in a town where open carry was commonplace. It was so common that I attended a wedding there where at least three of the groomsmen had pistols holstered under their jackets (CC) which were exposed once those jackets were removed at the reception (OC). Nobody batted an eye. Then again, the reception was also dry and held in a dry county. I’m an open carry supporter but would’ve made a hasty exit from the reception otherwise.

    The sight of a pistol only causes a commotion because many parts of this country have made gun ownership, carrying, and use incredibly difficult.

    1. avatar Gene says:

      There’s also the subconscious tugging, adjusting, checking, and whatnot that new carriers typically do that inadvertently draw attention.

  47. avatar TK says:

    The “new law” changed nothing about “open” carry. We in Georgia have a history of being slow and backward in our laws, that is, we are not on the cutting edge of personal freedom and liberty. We are instead one of the very last few states to allow carry in churches or bars. Even now, those locations can choose to allow or disallow carry within their buildings. Listening to the MSM, you would think Georgia is the first state to allow carry in those places.

  48. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

    When these people describe how the armed populace think I wish someone would ask:

    “Do you think that way? Do your friends think that way? Do you personally know anyone who thinks that way (and by that I mean know them well enough to know how they think)? Then why do you think that people you don’t know think that way?”

  49. avatar Retired LEO says:

    I just have two requests to OC & CCW spend a few more bucks & get a decent retention holster and, keep your hand off of the weapon unless drawing it.

    I’ve seen a lot of people carrying in $7.99 holsters meant for airsoft or $60.00 yaqui belt slides w/o retention constantly putting hand on gun butt to reposistion it. Neither is safe.

  50. avatar kbad says:

    No.

    Back in the 90s I lived outside of Detroit and dated a girl who’s step father was an electrician in the area. He was an independent contractor without any ties to a major shop or the unions, so he was relegated to smaller jobs in some of the rougher parts of the ‘D’. After the second time his truck was cleaned out while he was on a job site, his insurance company told him that they would no longer cover his losses.

    At the time, Michigan was a may-issue state and they somehow determined that he was ineligible. So he researched the laws and discovered that he could open carry. So that’s what he did.

    He had a holster made to carry his Ruger Blackhawk on his toolbelt and wouldn’t you know it…no one bothered with his truck. Sure he had the police called on him several times (“omg, he has a gun”), but generally after explaining to the officers his situation (and sometimes the laws supporting his actions) they parted on good terms.

    If you had the good fortune to make his acquaintance, the first thing you would notice was that he was an old hippy: long gray hair (occasionally with a braid or two) a big bushy beard, and a vintage ‘grateful dead’ shirt to round out the mix. The last thing he ever wanted to do was take a life, but people were literally taking his livelihood from him. The very idea that they could lose their life in stealing from him was enough to deter (last I heard) all would be thieves from even approaching his truck.

    So intimidating? Yes. Blood-thirsty killer? No, he was just a man trying to make his way in the world the best he could and who can really fault him for that?

  51. Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be prohibited.

    “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

    “We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 – Supreme Court (2010) at 3050.

    “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons…” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 – Supreme Court (1897) at 282

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse.”

      There goes that ridiculous non sequitur again.

      Every other good point you might make is lost…because I refuse to read past that line or take seriously the person that oft repeats it.

      Sorry, man.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email