As an open carrier I believe that openly carried firearms are the key to gun normalization, which is the key to defending and extending our right to keep and bear arms. Now you could say that TigerFace is only railing against attention-seeking Chipotle ninjas — and that’s OK. I say it isn’t OK. Railing against rifle-toting gun right activists, that is. If an American is exercising his natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms I say good for him/her. Good for us. What say you, again?

Recommended For You

214 Responses to More Open Carry Hate [NSFW]

    • The nutcases that demand to open carry, not for protection, but for aggression and in-your-face payback for being weened too early are going to cost us all our gun rights.

      If your first gun was an AR15, I’m talking to you. So knock it off. You Call of Duty experience is not supported by the 2A.

      And claiming you’ll go postal and “start shooting people” when you feel violated is the same logic ISIS uses. So save us the pain and head on over to the hot sands and fight with your brothers under the black flag of cowardice.

        • I guess we should all collectively hide in the shadows and speak of 2A in hushed wispers hoping ol’ hilldawg will forget about her hatred of freedom… Sorry pal, it doesn’t work. Hiding away your first amendment right to free practice of religion has been so helpful in protecting it from leftist right? I agree with RF, normalization comes with familiarization. Think of how far we’ve come since just 95′.

        • You know, there is something that these posts, and their inevitable response, makes very clear: it isn’t the so-called “gun muggles” that we first need to desensitize to the presence/visibility of firearms; rather, it is the hoplophobes in our own ranks that we need to desensitize, before we can ever hope to desensitize anyone outside of our own ranks.

        • Maybe the “hoplophobes in our own ranks” are more politically sophisticated. More intent on building the public’s confidence by not appearing to throw our rights in their faces. Trying to win over the anti-gun and independents, rather than overwhelm them. Honey vs. vinegar???

          Not to launch off on a tangent but, Paul of the New Testament tells us, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” In simpler terms, “Just because I can doesn’t mean I must.”

          On the other hand, maybe there is only tolerance for one point of view here…”Anything I don’t like shouldn’t be allowed.”

        • Maybe the “hoplophobes in our own ranks” are more politically sophisticated. More intent on building the public’s confidence by not appearing to throw our rights in their faces. Trying to win over the anti-gun and independents, rather than overwhelm them. Honey vs. vinegar???

          Certainly, they believe themselves to be more politically sophisticated. None ever provides any actual evidence to support that belief, however.

          Not to launch off on a tangent but, Paul of the New Testament tells us, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” In simpler terms, “Just because I can doesn’t mean I must.”

          Paul is primarily talking about being guided by one’s conscience, informed by the leading of the Holy Spirit. Ask a typical open carrier if his conscience is clear.

          On the other hand, maybe there is only tolerance for one point of view here…”Anything I don’t like shouldn’t be allowed.”

          Which viewpoint – those who choose to carry openly or those who choose to carry concealed – is more/less tolerant of the other viewpoint? For that matter, where is even a single open carrier who is “intolerant” of those who choose to carry concealed?

        • Those who caution against rampant open carry are being pretty well scorned.

          You are correct about Paul, doesn’t mean his observation is not relevant outside spiritual matters.

        • Those who caution against rampant open carry are being pretty well scorned.

          Having one’s specious arguments refuted is not the same thing as being scorned. The only contempt and derision here is being levied by militant open-carry opponents, toward those who choose to open carry.

        • Specious arguments can be refuted. On this blog there is a demonstrated lack of ability to refute beyond name-calling, ridicule, insult, disrespect. There are few who can put together coherent statements. When you think about it, we act toward each other the way we act toward anti-gun proponents.

        • When you think about it, we act toward each other the way we act toward anti-gun proponents.

          If you’ve followed my comments at TTAG, you will know that what you describe is the very thing that I argue most vehemently against: internecine battles over individual choices regarding manner of exercise of a natural right.

          On this blog there is a demonstrated lack of ability to refute beyond name-calling, ridicule, insult, disrespect.

          You’ll also notice that I don’t engage in such tactics.

        • “it is the hoplophobes in our own ranks that we need to desensitize”

          Been saying that for a while now but not as eloquently.

          Of course, there remains two other possibilities:

          (1) Fudds, dyed in the wool so no conversion is possible

          or

          (2) Astroturfers pretending to be PotG for purposes of trying to gain credibility before offering trollish remarks.

        • I have noticed a few well written responses here recently that are clearly disguised as pro 2A, but ARE NOT.

        • Everybody knows that the 1st Amendment is only still with us because we collectively decided to speak our minds, only to trusted individuals we know, and behind closed does. /sarc.

      • My first “gun” was an AR-15. I had just PCS’d from overseas, and the AWB had just expired. Go fuck yourself.

    • I agree as well. There is a time and a place for open carry but if you are doing it just to get attention or to “stick it” to the police you are wrong. I’m a big guy and I’m a defensive tactics instructor. I teach police officers weapons retention skills and it’s no joke. If I was a convicted felon and I wanted to take your gun, I’m going to do it and you wont be able to stop me. Think about that next time you decide to open carry.

      • Oh brother….what a ridiculous declarative statement.

        A man (?) with an openly overinflated sense of blanket self-ability and a near unbelievable underestimation of the perceptions, awareness and abilities of everyone else.

        One just cannot make this stuff up and the internet puffed-up clown-parade marches on….

      • So “open carry to stick it to police”, if one is talking about setting up a confrontation with the intention of taking the police to court for breaking the law because the officer doesn’t know or care about the law is wrong, than aren’t sting operations wrong?

      • Yeah… Nope… Some of us know how to fight off idiots stupid enough to try and grab out guns. That’s why you almost never hear of cops being shot by perps who take their guns away. It’s just not that easy and is liable to get you shot.

      • ” I teach police officers weapons retention skills and it’s no joke.”

        Meh. I’ve had retention training…I think you are overinflating your own importance.

        Retention is important, but it’s not like it’s some super-human thing to practice. Get over yourself.

      • Why is the butt hurt always so strong on this website? Just because you open carry doesn’t make you untouchable.

        • Nobody made the claim that open carriers are untouchable.

          Conversely, YOU declared that……..

          “I teach police officers weapons retention skills and it’s no joke. If I was a convicted felon and I wanted to take your gun, I’m going to do it and you wont be able to stop me. ”

          Umm…yeah, right. YOU seem to be the one projecting your own false-sense of toughness, invincibility and prowess. Seems a typical cop attitude to me and I know because I was one for 23 years, including being a tactics instructor, DT and otherwise.

          Big fat deal.

          News flash….your average cop is out of shape, marginally competent in firearms and physical ability, yet holding an overinflated sense of specialness, heroism, worth, value and ability. Exemplars abound.

          Many of those who are actually technically and tactically proficient are JBTs with no regard for Liberty, the Constitution or any semblance of the proper role of policing in a free society. Exemplars abound.

          Pfft.

        • If I was a criminal (which I’m not) I would take you down, take your back and choke you out before you could even think “Oh, my gun”. Then, while you are lying unconscious, I will casually remove your firearm, grind off the serial number, then sell it to the highest bidder. Good thing most criminals aren’t as bold or confident as I am but the world is a rapidly changing place and when people get desperate they do desperate things. Open carry was banned in places when times got desperate and people would resort to doing such things to survive. This was before the internet and before police started tracking statistics. So don’t think just because you’ve never heard of things like this happening doesn’t mean it will never happen.

      • What Mr. Bennett said.

        Is this a statistically worrisome event? Got stats? Citations? ANY evidence whatsoever, apart from your professional credential claims?

    • I completely agree with Stew as well but that doesn’t mean he isn’t an effing tool himself. Wearing your “Arrest Team” kit to rant while driving in circles (obviously not serving a warrant) makes you a swat wannabe db. Just a notch above the militant open carry tools in my book.

    • I 100% agree with Robert. A right that only a few have isn’t a right. It is a privilege. People, need to quit getting their panties twisted every time they see a gun. Only way that will happen is when open carry becomes common place.

      • I agree. Dump all the political and legislative efforts; waste of money. Open Carry is cheap, and you don’t have to buy a membership. Put all those lobbyists out of business. Let them get real jobs. Open Cary is the only thing that will win more 2A supporters, stop all that other crap. The morons who don’t like guns will soon come over to our side if we just open carry everywhere, all the time. The ground swell raised by widespread open carry will wash over land, and we will finally put this whole thing to bed, permanently.

        • I agree. Dump all the political and legislative efforts; waste of money. Open Carry is cheap, and you don’t have to buy a membership. Put all those lobbyists out of business. Let them get real jobs. Open Cary is the only thing that will win more 2A supporters, stop all that other crap.

          Straw Man FTW!

          The morons who don’t like guns will soon come over to our side if we just open carry everywhere, all the time. The ground swell raised by widespread open carry will wash over land, and we will finally put this whole thing to bed, permanently.

          Actually, that would work. If every gun owner who could lawfully carry openly in his or her state immediately started doing so, every day – especially if supported by those who could only lawfully carry concealed in their state likewise doing so, every day – the POTG would win the gun control argument without a fight. The battle would be over in months, if not weeks or days.

        • Really…could u really be that ignorant…the best thing about America.is you’re free (WITHIN REASON AND THE LAW) to do as u wish…as am I….you remind me of George W Bush…when others disagree, you just speak louder and slower, unable to tolerate or even hear the ideas of others…you should really pull your head out of your ass at least far enough to expose your ears, so that you can at least hear what’s going on around you since you’re clearly incapable of seeing, let alone understanding any other point of view besides your own…

      • “People, need to quit getting their panties twisted every time they see a gun”

        Why?? How about this, do you like strangers on your property with guns? Does it in any way change your perception of what might be an innocuous act to trespassing to something potentially worse? . If you are OC-ing and on my property why shouldn’t I assume the worst?

        And the idea that OC-ing a firearm in public doesn’t send similarly ambiguous messages is simply delusional. Yeah, you and RF may be great guys but if I don’t know you…I don’t KNOW you.

        • If you’re on my property carrying a wrist watch, I dont know you either…..

          “Gun Normalization” means getting people sufficiently used to guns, that they no longer make any weird assumptions about those who carry it. I’ve been in hunting camps where everyone was carrying. And even before I know everyone, it didn’t make me uncomfortable. Ditto around cops. And soldiers. Some who weren’t American, even… Open carrying scary black rifles. And, tah-dah, it didn’t make me uncomfortable.

          I have some sympathy for railing against “look at me” types. regardless of whether they run straight pipes on their bikes, or wave their ARs in front of cops trying to provoke something. That’s just petty childishness. But people should be sufficiently used to having firearms, including long guns, around, that they don’t really pay any more attention to them, than they do wrist watches. In civilized societies, a gun or three, is literally part of a polite gentleman’s attire. Like a sword used to be. And guns were / still are in some parts.

        • Did I miss an argument that was made to abrogate private property rights reference open carry?

          Aside from that, I read about YOUR perceptions and YOUR mistrust, likes and desires. I see YOU projecting what other people may or may not ‘feel’ or believe when open carriers are seen or encountered.

          That said, YOUR desires and fears do not dictate what fundamental essential Liberty other people are able to exercise. You don’t want people carrying, openly or otherwise, on YOUR private property, that is your call.

          As for me, I couldn’t give a hairy rats-ass what you think or how you react if you see me or someone else open carrying while causing no harm to anyone’s Life, Liberty or Property.

          Open carry is fairly common in these parts. Has been forever. I see at least one open carrier each and every time I make a trip to town, be it at Wal*puke, the grocery store, walking down the street, in restaraunts or elsewhere.

          Not once have I seen any non-carrier overreact, swoon or jump on the phone and frantically call the police.

          You see, it is a common and widely ‘accepted’ (even if not agreed with by some) practice around these parts and it is viewed as normalized enough that it is what it is, with no fanfare.

          What a horrific concept, huh?

          So, go piss your lil girl panties at home when you see a big scary man carrying a (gasp) big bad gun, and leave the peaceful rugged-individualists to go on about their individual business when, where and how thay choose to do so, since they are not bothering you in any way.

          It is simply your own fears and collectivist beliefs working on you and that, old bean, is a personal problem….keep it so.

        • YOUR paranoia and ignorance do not indicate a requirement for me to camouflage my exercise of my Rights.

    • How about you knock off your statism and your “we must control the people” tendencies here. Give freedom a chance huh? If you can’t openly carry a rifle without folks losing their shit over it, then it doesn’t even matter that it’s legal or not, for all intents and purposes it’s banned. The anti-rifle open carry sentiments come from a cultural reaction that you shouldn’t open carry them, not from a logical basis (logic as in “open carriers of rifles don’t cause any harm, so what’s all the fuss about? Just freedom on, sir.”) The fact that there’s a fuss about openly carrying rifles means that our culture needs to change to be accepting of it. Piggybacking on the anti-gun crowds side of it (“what the hell do you NEED to do that for?”) does not change culture.

    • Constitutional Rights do not require camouflage, and there is no evidence that criminals frequently target open carriers.

      So, get bent.

  1. Cue all the drive-by, post one and done trolls telling us how OC is “stupid.”

    They’ll use a lot of emotionally charged terms like calling OC-ers “retard” and whole heap of “Geezer Science,” and they won’t engage in discussion…just post opinion and bow out.

    They show up for: Every. Single. OC. Article. Posted. On. TTAG.

    • ANTI-FLAME DELETED

      As long as you’re carrying lawfully, I don’t care how you carry, nor is it any of my business how you carry. You carrying has a net-positive impact on the carry rights of all.

      Mr. Bounty Hunter can go pound sand. He just regurgitates the same old, specious tripe.

      • TTAG editors:

        ANTI-FLAME DELETED

        You deleted as “anti-flame” the statement, Keep calm and carry on?

        Seriously? How is that, in any way whatsoever, inappropriate?

        • Wait, so now we can’t post flames and we can’t non-inflammatory stuff, either?

          After seeing the huge outpouring of frustration on the ad-blocker post yesterday, and stupid crap like this, I get the feeling someone better start setting up the motorcycle ramp and shark tank…

          I love ya, TTAG, but you really do need to get your shit together. Get it all together and put it in a backpack, all your shit, so it’s all together…

        • Wait. What?

          Chip, I thought you posted the ANTI-FLAME DELETED as a punny jab. I didn’t think it was real.

      • ” You carrying has a net-positive impact on the carry rights of all.”

        See…no. No it does not have a net positive impact. The fact is that “Mr Bounty Hunter” is not just speaking for himself but echos the sentiments of other pro-gun folks, myself included. And if some of us think that OC-ing is a little too much, what must people who are less-progun think (not talking about the anti’s here either)?

        You seen I want OC to remain an OPTION. But instead, repeated instigation of the OC topic (like this present entry by RF) are implying that OC is actually the hallmark of a true 2A supporter. Basically RF and TTAG are heavily (HEAVILY) implying that unless we all OC we are somehow complicit in thwarting “gun normalization”

        So if RF and TTAG is not telling us absolutely what to do, there’s a stong message that OS os what we all SHOULD do.

        • It seems a dirt-simple equation.

          One is either in support of ‘Rightful Liberty’, or one is not and is in support of either governmental or societal restrictions and controls on the exercise of the ‘Rightful Liberty’ of others.

          TJ weighed in on this long, long ago. Perhaps the following should be a ponderism, eh?

          “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” – Thomas Jefferson

          It would seem that ‘Rightful Liberty’ coupled with the application of another dirt-simple concept/principle which is supposed to reign in a Constitutional Republic, such as ours used to be, would be that unless an individual commits and actual ‘bad-act’ which actually harms the Life, the Liberty or the Property of another, then there is no role for govt there, and all the societal nanny-staters and community control-freaks should refer directly back to the yardstick of ‘Rightful Liberty’ to measure their actions and expressed thoughts and desires.

          It really is as simple as that…private property rights aside, of course.

        • TJ read the 2d amendment, heard the negotiations/arguments, knew that concealed weapons were considered prima facie evidence of criminal intent, and he approved the Constitution. He was under no illusions about absolute rights. He was perhaps the one person who could have had the 2d amendment changed to specifically state that any and all weapons could be acquired, carried and stored in any manner seen fit by a free man; didn’t happen. It was not an oversight.

        • So… it should be an OPTION, but no-one should actually USE it.

          Did I get that correct?

      • Chip, I said it was my belief, just like it’s your belief that it will make things better for gun rights.

        • Chip, I said it was my belief, just like it’s your belief that it will make things better for gun rights.

          You’re welcome to your own beliefs; you are not welcome to your own facts. Couching something as merely your belief does not end discussion on the matter; rather, it invites a challenge to your belief.

          I concede that your belief is your belief, and that you have a right to hold whatever beliefs you desire. But if your beliefs do not align with facts, then they don’t add much to the discussion.

          Is there anywhere that a loss in firearm rights can factually be tied directly to the practice of open carry?

        • Chip:

          In California back in the 1960s, open carry was legal. The Black Panthers conducted armed patrols of neighborhoods in Oakland, but the police didn’t like it. In response, a bay-area Republican in the California legislature introduced the Mulford Act, which would ban loaded open carry. After the Black Panthers protested the bill at the state capitol (openly carrying firearms legally), the act passed, and here’s the thing, with the NRA’s support. Then-Governor Ronald Reagan signed it into law in 1967. Open carry has been severely restricted in California ever since, and I don’t think we have any real hope of getting it back.

        • In California back in the 1960s, open carry was legal. The Black Panthers…

          This seems to be the go-to example when asked: something that happened half a century ago, in a firearms-related rights environment half a century removed from what we have today.

          Let’s start with 1986, and consider from then until today. As a reminder: in that time, the following has changed:

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/a/a8/20160308225417!Rtc.gif

          In that same time period, where has open carry had a net-negative impact on carry rights?

        • canopis, I submit that the Mulford Act was far more about blatant racism than anti-gun sentiment.

      • You want proof? Target, Starbucks, and Chipotle all changed their stance negatively on open carrying of weapons in their facilities due to the presence of OC agitators. However, nothing they have have done has stopped me (legally or otherwise) from spending money in all three in the same day this past weekend with my gat concealed on my side.

        • So, neither Target nor Chipotle nor Starbucks did anything legally binding to curtail gun rights? They wrote weasel-worded “open letters” to appease the Bullying Mommies, that had no effect on customers?

    • One more time: I don’t care what you (or anybody else) “believe”… Open carry managed to get Texas off of the wishy washy 2A train.

      But the real bottom line is that my rights are not subject to your or anybody else’s “beliefs”… They are not subject to regulation, registration, legislation, or the democratic process. That’s why they are rights, and not privileges.

      • Yep, if you guys are so afraid that OCers will damage your rights, maybe you should consider if you actually have those rights in the first place.

    • Which is why Kentucky has had open carry ever since we became a state, a couple of centuries longer than we have had legal concealed carry.

  2. I couldn’t watch the whole thing. All I could think was “you are driving down the road, right now, looking at the camera. Shut up and drive.”

    • Bounty hunter. One step above mall cop, something so wrong with him that he couldn’t make the cut for cop.

      • +1. Bounty hunter, repo man, bill collector, pay day loan brokers….bottom feeders living off the misery of others.

        • wow, so much ignorance. the 1st three are not bottom feeders feeding off the misery of others. Those others failed to show in court (i.e. skipped bail) or failed to pay their bills.

  3. If you are against open carry then I suggest you refrain from doing so. The beauty of individual rights is we each get to do our own thing.

    • Sadly, a concept lost on a lot of so-called PotG…at least a proclaimed subset that shows up consistently for articles like this to comment how THEIR opinions and beliefs should be the governing principles everyone else should follow.

  4. Little Stewie is dressed to the nines and ready to operate operationally. Clearly, he should be permitted to be armed in public. Anyone else who wants to exercise their 2nd amendment rights is obviously a trouble-maker.

  5. I agree OC needs to be normalized, but I think it has to be done in small doses. Just like a pillhead, you can’t wean a hoplophobe off their fear all at once in big doses, you have to start gradually (i.e. NOT with an AR15). Once people get used to seeing pistols OC’d and it’s not such a controversy, then we can sling the ARs and go for a stroll through town. Until then, they’re not helping our image and making it easier for the true antis to depict us as “nuts” to the fence sitters.

    • The antis will characterize gun owners as nuts regardless. This is a DNA thing. I will not compromise on DNA issues, as these people will not compromise with us.

    • I disagree with the “small doses” concept. It’s human nature to single out those that are different for one reason or another. If there is one person open carrying among hundreds guess which one is going to get stares and comments? Reverse that situation though and you have a whole different dynamic.

      Being a contractor who has deployed with the military on several occasions, some times unarmed. I can tell you that when you are the only unarmed person among the armed masses you feel naked, and you stand out like a sore thumb.

      If open carry is going to be normalized it will take a state-wide or national level call to open carry. Granted, the chances of that happening right now are zero. But should things change, say ISIS starts hitting the US hard and we have strong conservative leadership when it happens, who knows?

      • ” If there is one person open carrying among hundreds guess which one is going to get stares and comments?”

        That most likely depends a lot on where you are. I’ve carried openly for nearly ten years here in rural NE Wyoming. I’ve seen some others OC, and have friends who do on occasion, but I’m the only one I know who is armed consistently, every day, wherever I go – mostly OC. I think I’ve had two or three negative comments in all that time, and none of those from our peace officers. I’ve had countless positive comments and have handed out my card (I’m an instructor) to many hundreds.

        I’m also 70 years old, a partially disabled woman, and only five feet tall. LOL I don’t think I could stand out more unless I did start to carry a rifle… and I’ve even done that for some events. I also know that a good number of people CC here, and that’s absolutely their business. I do so myself sometimes, depending on the situation.

        Get a grip, folks. If OC isn’t acceptable where you live, and you are not willing to “stand out,” then just don’t OC. No big deal.

    • How many people do you see OC AR-15s? There are 375 MILLION guns in this country and over 100 MILLION firearms owners. How many OC long guns outside of a 2A rally? One or two people here and there?

      Why is this even an issue?

      • Because the media gets ratings with anything gun-related.

        Oddly, the politicians that are against the 2A are all systematically singling themselves out as anti-responsibility and anti-constitution and pretty much killing their own approval ratings.

        The problem is solving itself. Common sense seems to be prevailing over the “common sense” the antis are touting – which isn’t fooling anyone.

    • The majority of people OCing rifles are or were doing it in protest of stupid laws that prevented them from legally openly carrying a handgun. They’re not doing it because hauling an AR-15 around is comfortable or convenient. If you live somewhere where long gun open carry is legal, but handgun open carry isn’t, it seems like highlighting the stupidity of that distinction is a good way to start a discussion about the law.

      Context is important, and nobody is out there just carrying an AR around for EDC.

      • Oh, but there are…..those who believe they have a right to carry whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, and however they want…..including long guns. That was the only topic of his rant. Not hand guns….long guns. Which, if anyone has been paying attention, are the common thread in nearly all of the recent mass shootings. You don’t see a lot of those AR-carrying protest videos anymore, do ya? Gee, I wonder why? Maybe they don’t want the Po-po to mistake them for the next Adam Lanza, or Farook Sayed?

        • And aside from the private property rights of others, they absolutely have that ‘right’, just as they should.

          The problem is that this essential fundamental Liberty is all too often unconstitutionally restricted (read infringed) by govt and those unconstitutional govt actions and the anathema to fundamental Liberty Principle that it is, is rousingly cheered on by societal control freaks and the societal ferfraid, read insidious Collectivists.

          Where do you fit into the equation?

    • It would seem to me to be a mite bizarre to tie one’s exercise or non-exercize of a fundamental essential Liberty to what others may think or how others may react.

      This merely indicates that collectivist govt and collectivist societal control mechanisms have a person in thier grip and fenced in, as intended.

      Here are a series of ponderisms….

      Exercise one’s Liberty as one sees fit and do no actual harm to another person’s Life, Liberty or Property.

      If other people get ferfraid, or angry, or oppose and/or attempt to restrict or remove one’s fundamental essential Liberty when nobody is actually being harmed by its free exercise, openly disobey, resist, refuse to comply and just go on about your business.

      If govt uses these collectivist societal-gerbils fears, angers and or desires to attempt to legislate away or statutorily/legally restrict or remove one’s essential fundamental Liberty, then I submit that those actions and that govt is rogue, tyrannical and utterly outside the bounds and prohibitions placed upon it by the Constitution and founding principles…therefore, it would seem to be the appropriate point to bare Liberty’s Teeth and hearken directly back to the times, circumstances and reasons Amendment II was enumerated as a prohibition on government.

      Ponder that.

      In a nutshell…fuck what other people think about exercising one’s Liberty in a non-harmful manner. Fear of other people’s beiefs and potential reactions should not dictate how, why, where and/or when one decides or chooses to exercise one’s individual Rightful Liberty.

      • There is the long forgotten idea of being well-mannered, polite. Also, another characteristic long unpracticed: being considerate of others. Since the ’80s we have seen the rise, nay, flood, of people flaunting an “in your face” attitude about everything. Behavior practiced by conservatives, libertarians, and the favored enemy of both: liberals. The attitude is only complained about when done by liberals.

        • I know of only one way to be polite: Do no physical or financial harm to others outside of ethical self-defense.

          If there is another set of rules out there, please tell me where they are written down, who voted on them, and why I am morally obligated to follow them if I had no say in them.

        • When one perceives life as a jungle, jungle morals, manners and judgement prevail. Everyone for themselves, always.

      • Is there not a tactical element to consider? If we have hundreds (or even dozens) of long gun carriers wandering about the streets, do we not desensitize the public to people with long guns, and maybe incite inattention to those who are carrying long guns with intention to kill a bunch of unsuspecting people? Would we want to be like the witness to the Colorado Springs killing who saw the open carrier (armed with a long gun) just leisurely walking along with the rifle balanced on his shoulder, moments away from attempted mass murder? The witness did not report the incident becauses: a) open carry is legal in Colorado; b) the witness didn’t want to look foolish.

        We hate when someone panics at the sight of a gun, but we become outraged when someone saw something out of the ordinary, and did nothing.

        It is fun to rant, but much more difficult to really think your way through several conflicting desires.

      • What so many of you “purists” of the “essential liberty” crowd seem to deliberately overlook, if not not outright and belligerently ignore, is the feelings of others, with your selfish, self-righteous, go fuck yourself if you don’t like it, attitude. Bravo. You’re a half a step short of being a sociopath. Apparently, it’s too big of an imposition to ask you to think of others when you carry-on with your self-serving diatribe about how society has no say in what kind of firearms it wants to see carried in public, by the public. Not since the late 1800’s have long guns been considered acceptable as EDC personal defense firearms. Why? Because the society said so. And why? Because the wild West frontier was finally conquered, and rapidly fading into history and legend. We no longer had to defend ourselves from wild animals, hostile Indians, and bushwhackers, at distances of 50+ yards away. We organized police to enforce laws, so we wouldn’t have to. It’s called being civilized, and living in a civil society where justice is meted out by a jury of ones peers, not by anyone’s personal, or arbitrary discretion.

        What I find particularly curious, is how many of the whatever, wherever, whenever, however I want crowd on this blog, are the same people who would upchuck in vomitous protest if the local police or Sheriffs Deputies started carrying AR platform long guns as part of their normal carry kit. Yet you seem hold to some convoluted belief that it’s a good idea if you did? Just because you have the right, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea.

        Sorry, but your “fuck what other people think” logic offends me….along with a lot of other people. Hmm, it also sounds like something a bully would say. Let’s see….a bully, with loaded firearms? What could possibly go wrong there?

        • What so many of you “purists” of the “essential liberty” crowd seem to deliberately overlook, if not not outright and belligerently ignore, is the feelings of others, with your selfish, self-righteous, go fuck yourself if you don’t like it, attitude.

          I cannot control the feelings of others. I can only control myself, and comport myself within the law, while avoiding causing harm to others. Thus, I refuse to be beholden to the feelings of others, and to curtail my rights and my liberties in order not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the perpetually aggrieved.

          You’re a half a step short of being a sociopath.

          Given that the “half-step” to which you refer is lack of conscience, and given that people who lawfully possess and carry firearms are the most law-abiding people of any demographic, your “half-step” might as well be from here to the moon.

          Apparently, it’s too big of an imposition to ask you to think of others when you carry-on with your self-serving diatribe about how society has no say in what kind of firearms it wants to see carried in public, by the public. Not since the late 1800’s have long guns been considered acceptable as EDC personal defense firearms. Why? Because the society said so.

          Society has also, at times, said that black people were chattel, that public displays of affection were verboten, that interracial or homosexual couples should not be seen together in public, etc.

          The whims of society do not trump natural rights or the rule of law in a constitutional republic.

          Sorry, but your “fuck what other people think” logic offends me….along with a lot of other people.

          Then put some ice on it. Your hurt feelings do not trump the individual liberties of others.

          I’ll stand with the people lawfully exercising their natural rights, even if they choose to do so in a different manner from the way I choose to do so.

          mm, it also sounds like something a bully would say.

          Who is bullying whom, here? The people minding their own business, or the people demanding others change their actions in order not to offend someone else?

  6. Complains about others open carrying for YouTube views but requests you subscribe to his channel at the end of his temper tantrum. What a “jack wagon”…

  7. I could rail against all his black tactical, bullshit, cop wannabe crap he has on, but I won’t because he wants to look like that. His choice….your choice……my choice…..our choice. This is America; be yourself.

  8. The problem here is that this gentlemen doesn’t seem to understand that rights only exist as long as they are exercised. Likes muscles in the body, if you fail to utilize then they will disappear and be forgotten. People who open carry are actually protecting our rights by making sure they can still be used to there fullest extent. How can you detract from a right by utilizing it?

  9. OC Texas changed everything in that state, ending more than a hundred years of handgun ban. In all that time no open carriers committed a violent crime. Open carry anyway you want as long as you are legal & respectful. CC too. It’s ALL good. Who gets to determine if a certain way of open carry isn’t cool? Once you go back down that road, making rules for everyone else based on your bias, you’re on the road to gun-control again. After all, that’s all about feelings, not facts or rights.

  10. It’s jackwagons like this that make repeatedly listening to their misguided views just a blood pressure increaser.

    It’s all about freedom – do what you want and I’ll do what I want and we won’t interfere with each other.

    I like to call that “liberty”. Everyone should get all they can handle so long as they don’t take it from someone else.

    Is some guy railing against open carry actually news-worthy anymore or can we just start ignoring them at some point? I don’t see them adding anything to the discussion aside from being “blood in the streets” hawkers who are supposedly on the side of freedom.

  11. It’s no different than say a claw hammer or a baseball bat.. everyone has the right to carry one, nobody would even look twice normally at someone carrying a hammer or a bat in a normal manner. If you have a hammer in your hand, at high ready, with a wild look in your eye and head on a swivel, somebody gonna notice and take offense. It’s not the carrying, it’s the attitude, and if you carry with enough attitude, it reflects badly on all carriers. I carry open or concealed depending on a variety of factors, but always carry quietly and unobtrusively if I can. I think that’s common sense.

  12. This is what I posted in the comments section of his video….

    If open carriers hurt the image of the 2nd Amendment, bounty hunters hurt the image of legitimate law enforcement officers and detectives. You all roll up on people decked out with tactical gear, guns and bad attitudes like barbarian mercenaries. Not too mention you wear shirts way too tight and that not only offends the sensibilities of the fashion police but the public at large. My 2A protects me from a people who would do me harm such as thugs, home invaders, a tyrannical government and over zealous hired mercenary bounty hunters who may falsely enter my domicile thinking I am someone else.

    Your points are not without merit though. I believe in responsible and trained people carrying guns, but I also believe open carry is the process of the normalization of guns in public. There was a time interracial couples had to “conceal” themselves from public view, but now it is normal. Rights shouldn’t be hidden and kept mysterious to the public at large. If they do, they will have no problem voting for politicians who will take away guns as they (the public) won’t think many people have them as they never see them and therefore must be societal outliers.

    • Your Second Amendment DOES NOT protect you from “people who would do me harm such as thugs, home invaders”…” and over zealous hired mercenary bounty hunters who may falsely enter my domicile thinking I am someone else.” That is your responsibility.
      The 2A exists for the sole purpose of enabling you to keep and bear arms to protect yourself from your government. It’s about freedom.

  13. Wow… what an idiot. He’s going to tell me aallll about OC while driving around in a SUV looking like God’s gift to tacti-cool.

    Hell I tend to agree that OC isn’t the best option for self defense. But at the same time I’m not going to knock an entire subset of people because of the actions of an extreme minority within that group.

  14. Not so cool where I live. To win the war you have to give some. There are too many people who are afraid of guns. That seven year old says in that class, “you don’t need to be afraid of guns.” I agree but so many people have no experience and putting them in their faces helps them run to support the antis.

    There are things we can’t change. If you show up black you can’t hide that and racists have to deal. If you show up black and others find that you aren’t a gangbanger then their fears slowly go away. So a black person could purposely dress street to make a statement but it just causes fear. Does he have a right? Sure. Does it further the cause? No.

    I thought a lot about this. I used to ride motorcycles. I have a visceral reaction to going 110mph on one. Thinking about it, I feel it inside. Do I care if my friends do? Nope. Would I start an organization to pass laws to ban motorcycle riding? No way! If I thought you might make me ride at 110+mph on one at any moment, would banning them be more interesting?

    Fear is irrational. People will do a lot of bad things to not feel fear.

    • Think panicked citizens is greatly exaggerated. There have been a number of videos of people Open Carrying without creating a stampede. In fact there are a number of video of fearful or hostile law enforcement.
      “ so many people have no experience and putting them in their faces helps them run to support the antis.
      How is a holstered handgun on a gun belt, not touching the gun, “putting a gun in their face?
      If someone is anti-2nd Amendment, they are against non-police having guns, that is never going to change

      • Actually many people aren’t thinking about guns. Their association with them is when bad things happen.
        Your opinion is valid. For me it depends on where you are. If where you live they are only visible when cops or bad guys have them then you’re possibly hurting the cause.
        Don’t think once they’ve made up their mind they are done. My experience is that cultural bundling gets all of us in trouble.
        Example: you drive a Prius. So you are pro choice liberal vegan anti gun & green.
        Guess what? Only thing you see is the Prius. Talk to them they are a hunter, gun fanatic, with conservative values who happens to like this car.
        I’ve convinced a lot of people that the left lies about guns to further their agenda because I may not fit the stereotype. In fact where I live no gun owner fits the stereotype. Who better to convince people that Hillary is dangerous than someone who folks assume would vote for her. This is why undercover, stealth and discretion are more effective than a frontal assault.
        So we’ll do our part. You do yours. We’ll meet in the middle. People of the Gun.

  15. Stu the Bounty Hunter has just done what he accuses exhibitionist open carriers of doing. He could have made his point much better with out the potty mouth. Look at me I can say F**K 10 times in 10 seconds. Carrying a rifle around town is stupid. I understand why Texans did it during the move to Minnesota style open carry. You guys got it now, if you want to open carry, do it with a handgun.

    And Bernie is less likely to take you guns then Donald. Bernie just says he is anti gun because he has to but doesn’t really care. It’s the one positive thing about him.

  16. I don’t carry to promote the 2A. I carry to protect myself, and overall, I think it is better to be concealed than be walking around with it in the open. I have the element of surprise. I don’t have to constantly be worried about who is looking at my gun, whether with intent to take it or intent to “swat” me.

    You wanna open carry and it’s legal, have at it. I think it is dumb, even dumber if you don’t use a security holster and/or are trained in weapon retention. And if you f*ck up and have your gun stolen from you because of OC, I get to say “I told you so.”

    • ” And if you f*ck up and have your gun stolen from you because of OC, I get to say “I told you so.””

      How many people you got to say that to so far?

      I’m guessing “none.” Because the concern is overblown nonsense. Simple precautions apply. It’s not rocket surgery.

    • yes, because there is like 5 confirmed cases in 5 years of people targeting open carriers for their guns(3 this year, 2 in TX after the law changed and 1 in VA), and not all of them were successful

      I found more cases of conceal carriers being seen and losing their guns in robberies… maybe you should lecture them

  17. I got through exactly 11 seconds of that video up to “…crazy white boy second amen–” (click). Stew the bounty hunter looks like the stereotypical mall ninja cop wannabe himself. I don’t give a damn what he has to say.

    I see nothing at all wrong with someone open carrying in a decent holster. It’s not usually for me, but I respect other peoples’ choices. Don’t need to hear some profane jerk (didn’t wait for the profanity but the “NSFW” pretty much gives it away), ranting in my face.

    • What’s with this repeated fiction of how open-carriers “helped” Texas pass OC? They damn near derailed it. You won’t find a single politician who worked on the bill saying “boy, thank goodness for OCTC and OCT! They sure helped us!”

      OC was a done deal, promised by the Governor, long before the open-carry activists got involved. Ain’t nobody who followed the fight that believes the rifle open-carriers helped in any way (except, possibly, lighting a fire under Dan Patrick’s ass when he said that it wasn’t a priority at the start of the legislative term).

      • They damn near derailed it.”

        Oh, that’s rich. You really need to go back to Syllogisms 101.

        Question: Would the debate have even happened if the OC activists in TX not pushed the issue into the public consciousness?

        You claim no politician will admit that they were swayed by the OC activism…so, when did we start believing anything out of the mouths of the politicians? They all speak the truth all the time…is that what you would have us believe?

        The truth of the matter is the very best you rationally say is “we don’t know the effect OC activism had in TX.” Anything beyond that is your own vomited up blind speculation re-worded to sound “thoughtful.”

        • Sorry, I was there. I watched it play out. I know what happened, and I know what the OC antics caused. It is fair to say that OC passed in Texas DESPITE the antics of the OC crowd. It is absurd in the extreme to say that OC demonstrators somehow improved the chances of OC passing.

        • “It is fair to say that OC passed in Texas DESPITE the antics of the OC crowd. “

          Nothing of the sort is “fair to say.”

          You seem to be confusing your opinion with data and facts.

          What politicians have gone on the record saying they voted for OC despite the activists? Gotta link to the quotes?

          The Disarmament Crowd are the emotional bleating anti-logic ones…our side strives to do better. Got some data to support your claims? If not, it’s just that…emotional bleating.

      • I was there, too. The people in the TX lege who opposed OC were going to oppose it no matter what anyone did or said. The point is, OC of handguns with a permit is law in Texas, as it is in MN. There is also now a law in MN that restricts what bounty hunters can wear, due in large part to Stew Peters. It seems people find Mr. Peters a lot more obnoxious than the OCers he complains about.

    • I’m not a fan of OC. I have many issues with it. I have now read the article you linked.

      The above three are all statements of fact. In light of the article and some of the opinions (we aren’t pretending to be cops…if people think we are cops, that’s good), I have one thought to add to the above list.

      I think it might be fun to OC around him just to piss him off.

      • “I think it might be fun to OC around him just to piss him off.”

        Might be an effective strategy.

        While pissed off, he may make an error that can be exploited…

  18. There is simply too much material, ignorance, hypocrisy and downright dipshittedness in this attention whores video to get into. I will simply say that he is a perfect representation of a ‘new’ american.

    A ‘new’ american who, like his masses of brethren, is largely clusless of fundamental principles, actual freedom and the dirt-simple concept of ‘Rightful Liberty’…caught in the paradigm set up for us by govt….an enabler of govt tyranny…an insideous advocate for the non-exercise of fundamental Liberty and deliberately calling for the approach of ””comply and go along with govt tyranny and maybe they will allow us to keep some scraps””.

    Pfft.

    Naught but a puffed-up Quisling.

    TJ weighed in on this stuff a couple hundred years ago……

    “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” – Thomas Jefferson

    Hey puffed-up attention whore…you don’t have to like or agree with what other people do, but if they measure up to the ‘TJ Yardstick’ and are not causing actual harm to the Life, Liberty or Property of others, you should be DEFENDING them and their actions from govt controls and intrusion and from societal controls and intrusions, rather than railing against free men openly exercising a fundamental essential Liberty.

    Pfft.

  19. Open Carry is one of those whatchacallit conundrums. De-sensitizing the public to the sight and presence of firearms is not a bad goal in and of itself, but the methods can have the opposite effect. When a person feels compelled to openly display a long gun, hanging over the shoulder on a two-point sling seems reasonable enough. Walking around at high or low ready is beyond polite or useful. Indeed, high/low ready just might result in the kind of unwanted attention we fear…swatting (well, swatting is an intent to harm, having no justification), calling for the coppers.

    It would seem to be a poor bet that a person arrested for “menacing” (high/low ready public carry) will ever be able to hold a firearm again.

  20. I get carrying a rifle into a coffee house on the way to hunting, but carrying one around just for fun and shock?

      • Well, there are several YouTube videos of such, and some of the pictures during the Texas affair did not show hunters going in and out of coffee shops. On the whole, videos, blogs, news outlets, the majority of rifle open carriers are not doing it as a means to keep their rifle safe, but just for display. The theme of those identified in this report is open carry for show.

        • Well, there are several YouTube videos of such, and some of the pictures during the Texas affair did not show hunters going in and out of coffee shops.

          You’re begging the question. Those things prove that there are people who open carry. Those things do not prove the intent of open carry.

          On the whole, videos, blogs, news outlets, the majority of rifle open carriers are not doing it as a means to keep their rifle safe, but just for display.

          How do you know the intent of anyone you see in a video, photograph, blog, etc.? And more importantly: how do you know that the intent is to shock?

        • I conclude from images that don’t seem to be hunters going to or from a hunting area, but people who are just walking around with guns. The conversations on the videos also seem to show that the intent is to just for fun or shock. The surrounding areas do not seem to be the sort of places where a rifle would be required for walking to the local recreation park.

          If open carry is legal, folks have a right to carry. Carrying a rifle around might work against us all, like the situation in Texas. It doesn’t seem that if we (whoever has a gun to open carry) just want to show-off and make carrying a gun look normal, we will have no where to go if the public is convinced that we are crazy, and laws need to be tightened or implemented.

        • I conclude from images that don’t seem to be hunters going to or from a hunting area, but people who are just walking around with guns.

          Either you’re concluding based on nothing but speculation, or else you are presenting a false dichotomy. Just because someone is carrying for a purpose other than hunting does not mean that said person is carrying simply for “fun or shock”.

          The conversations on the videos also seem to show that the intent is to just for fun or shock.

          Why are you conflating “fun” and “shock”? I asked specifically for evidence of open carriers carrying for the purpose of shock.

          The surrounding areas do not seem to be the sort of places where a rifle would be required for walking to the local recreation park.

          There are many reasons one may choose as the basis for exercising the right to bear arms at any given time. They are not limited to hunting, necessity, fun, and shock.

          Further: the carry of firearms is a matter of liberty to exercise a natural right, not a matter of necessity/requirement. (As others have said: it’s the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.) No one lawfully exercising the natural right to bear arms needs to justify to you, me, or anyone else the reason for his choice/method of exercising that right.

        • How about this, “Openly Carrying for the fun of shocking unsuspecting bystanders”.

          So far, I have only seen or heard people open carrying rifles state their reason as “Because I Can.” If that is the only reason, there is not even a pretense of self-defense, or protecting themselves against the government. The only justification for “because I can” is the intent to get a rise out of someone.

          The true test of demonstrating support for gun rights, and to make a statement related to removing all restrictions on gun possession, is to open carry where it is illegal. The civil rights movement did not demonstrate/resist in places where their presence was legal.

          I haven’t yet said that any open carriers doing so where it is legal do not have a “right” to do so. But I am perceiving that the “hate” about open carry is happening here, an not from those who advise more caution.

        • So far, I have only seen or heard people open carrying rifles state their reason as “Because I Can.” If that is the only reason, there is not even a pretense of self-defense, or protecting themselves against the government.

          “Because I can” is a perfectly valid reason to exercise any natural right, in the lawful manner of one’s own choosing.

          The right to bear arms is a natural and civil right that is constitutionally protected against government infringement. The reason for constitutional protection includes self-defense and protection against government tyranny; however, the reason for the right itself is not limited to those two purposes.

          The only justification for “because I can” is the intent to get a rise out of someone.

          Simply untrue. The vast majority of people who carry – openly or concealed – simply “because I can” do so without any thought toward others, and prefer to be left alone by others. There is simply no intent to cause a reaction by others.

          Also, someone who claims to be carrying “because I can” is explicitly refuting the allegation that he or she is carrying in order to “shock” or otherwise get a reaction out of others. You may claim that such a person is lying, but you would need to provide evidence to support that claim. I still see no such evidence.

        • “The only justification for ‘because I can’ is the intent to get a rise out of someone. “

          Not true. One very good justification for “because I can” might be “Because I can carry a rifle openly, but for some silly reason, openly carrying a handgun is illegal where I live.” This was the case in Texas just a few months ago, and the great majority of the OC’ed rifles leading up to the legislative session were there to highlight the ridiculousness of that law.

        • From what we read from the Texas people on this blog, OC of rifles nearly defeated the OC measure.

        • Sam, it was Statist RINO legislators who almost killed OC in the last legislative session, not a few guys legally toting around AR-15s. There’s a pretty nasty authoritarian streak running through the Texas government, and some of those authoritarians in key legislative positions don’t like open carry. They wanted to kill it, and pretended to be afraid of the open carry demonstrators to give them pretext to do so. Fortunately, they didn’t prevail, but they did succeed in making sure you still have to have a government permission slip to exercise your rights here. Statism at its finest!

        • I was no where near Texas, so I have no direct knowledge. What I read and saw in videos was there was some resistance from pro-gun/pro-open carry legislators who were perceiving their constituents were turning against open carry because of all the people openly displaying. That was what I briefly referenced in response to another commenter who wanted “proof” that open carry demonstrators were generally doing that just for “fun and shock”. In yet another comment, I noted that the Texas affair was best left to Texans to describe and analyze.

        • “From what we read from the Texas people on this blog, OC of rifles nearly defeated the OC measure.”

          Do be careful of selection bias. Only some folks make that claim…without substantiation to back it up.

          Others in Texas make the claim, just as fervently, that the OC of rifles was instrumental in getting the law passed.

          Who are you going to believe?

          At the very least, the OC activism involving rifles brought the issue to, and kept it in, the forefront of the news. And, the measure, such as it is, passed.

          Result.

  21. I have been selectively open carrying since Texas has given us permission and I have had nothing but positive feedback from people around me. I am in the North Ft Worth area of the state where I thought with all the California transplants would have a hissy fit.

    • Can you tell me WHERE you OC? I live in the Houston suburbs, and other than Wal-Mart (where I don’t shop), there seem to be 30.07 signs. I can OC in my car, and in my house and my yard, and that is about it.

      https://www.texas3006.com/ More entries every day…

  22. The irony is so thick you could slice it with a knife. This guy perceives open carriers as a threat to his liberty. So he goes on the offensive (in both senses of the word) and takes action against open carriers. Contrast that guy with open carriers who perceive government overreach and police actions as a threat to their liberty … so open carriers go on the offensive and take actions against police via open carry exercise of their rights and recording video — both legal activities. Somehow, when that guy perceives a threat to his liberty and takes legal action, that is righteous. But when open carriers perceive a threat and take legal action, they are giant @ssholes.

    Perhaps much more important, that guy whines for an “appeasement strategy”. I can assure you that “playing nice” will not appease gun-grabbers. Gun-grabbers are going to demand that government agents come for our guns. The only question is how slow or long and obvious a process they pursue.

    While that guy is whining and kowtowing to gun-grabbers and government, the rest of us will be actually doing the real heavy lifting to protect and expand our liberties. Don’t be “that guy”.

        • Shoving an idea or an object into anyone’s face (as in “in your face, FM”) is a form of force…”forcing” oneself (one’s habits, one’s lifestyle, ones rudeness, etc.) on another.

          BTW, “spitting” on someone is exactly the kind of tactics we hate when committed by the other side. Acting as if everyone has an obligation to tolerate and endure the most vulgar of language, action, viewpoints; absolutely no consideration for anyone but oneself.

  23. WHY does anyone give a rat’s butt what this dawg wannabe(or is one) sez??? The worst of the worst are bounty hunters. Attention whore…

  24. I can’t take anyone seriously that has a title for a name “douche bag the bounty hunter”.
    Nope…….stay calm and carry on.
    Why do you guys feed this wolf?

  25. I get where he’s coming from. Keep a low profile, don’t rock the boat, don’t give “the Man” an excuse to crack down and revoke our rights. His angry admonition is, within the context of the struggle for firearms freedom, tantamount to what “just sit in the back of the bus and be quiet”, “just get back in the kitchen and be quiet”, and “just stay in the closet and be quiet” were in other civil rights campaigns. The problem is, sitting down and shutting up is not a viable strategy.

    Nobody gains recognition of their rights by waiting around for scraps from the ruling class. You have to fight for them. While there are better and worse ways to go about that fight, you can’t stand still fast enough to make progress. Or something like that.

    Moreover, his advice contradicts the observed success of open carry protests on the gun debate in this country. The same loudmouthed, wait-for-our-rights crowd pooh poohed Open Carry Texas and their efforts. And what happened? The issue became a major election issue, with even the Dem governor candidate (lying about) supporting OC. Today, licensed OC is the law, as is licensed CC campus carry. In other states, firearms freedom is spreading and rolling back a century of restrictions.

    No, it isn’t entirely or even primarily the result of OC activists, but neither is there proof that the OC activists are hindering progress. If you don’t like these guys, fine. The public recognizes them as peaceful protesters. Only die hard, gun haters and gun elitists feel threatened. Good. The rest of the electorate welcomes this debate and has responded favorably at the polls. So how about you knock off the whining and get down with the struggle?

  26. Everyone who supports OC does it with logical arguments about the nature of rights and simple psychology about “desensitizing” onlookers. They’re not wrong in theory. But in practice, people are not swayed by logic, and the populace is ignorant of – and unconcerned with- the philosophical underpinnings of our republic.

    Given that you can’t reason your way past people’s irrational fears (if you could, we’d restrict cars far more than guns, to name just one example), I think OC is largely counter-productive except in very specific situations (In Ohio, for example, OCers got a CCW regime passed by OCing until people who didn’t want to see guns allowed it to be passed).

    You may “desensitize” some people to guns, sure. But you will probably also scare many who weren’t even thinking about guns. Your violation of people’s sense of public decency will convince them that those “gun nuts” really ARE nuts. You’ll scare them, and they won’t think you are civil libertarians taking a stand for the rights of all, they’ll think you’re bullies needlessly pushing people around. Those people will then be more likely to support anti-gun policies. Nose gone, face spited.

    Also, the guy in the video? Fuck that guy.

    • Harry,

      I submit that the most effective solution probably lies somewhere in the middle of:
      (a) walking on egg shells and trying to discretely expand our right without scaring or offending anyone, and
      (b) wearing our sidearms openly “loud and proud”.

      The problem, though, is that we will offend some people no matter what we do or do not do. And make no mistake, no matter what we do, dyed-in-the-wool gun grabbers are going to hate us and will not stop until we are disarmed, in prison, or dead.

      Choose wisely.

    • If your theory were correct, then the last several decades of gay and black characters positively portrayed in film, T.V. and even in real life would only have further segregated the country. In fact, the opposite has happened. We’ve gone from blaxploitation films to Dr. Huxtable to blacks at the highest levels of business, academia and government.

      Same with gays. They used to be portrayed, but never explicitly identified, exclusively in offensive, stereotypical, flamboyant fashion. Numerous normal gays coming out, in pop culture and in people’s families, and next thing you know, one is the Democrat frontrunner for President. Neither the MLK Day or Gay Pride Day parades derailed their progress.

      Sure, to this day, some people fear gays. Some fear blacks. Regardless how well or unfounded their fears, the fact is that both groups are out there in mainstream society. Nobody whom that bothers can do a damn thing about it now.

      The same with be so with guns. Haters gotta hate, but one day they’ll feel ashamed and won’t dare display their firearms freeeom bigotry in polite society.

      • I would like to agree with your theory of development of social acceptance. However, the examples you cite only apply to those groups because of political favoritism and positive press acceptable to liberal elites. Guns have no such fertile ground in which to flourish. Acting out as gay, etc, gets you more support. Acting out as a gun owner has a more limited potential for increased support. (because liberal elites and most media outlets are anti-gun; fact)

  27. The whole purpose of the way this guy dresses and presents himself is to attempt to look like a LEO. As Tommy Lee Jones said in Men In Black, “Give her time to get the wrong impression.” This guy is a cop wannabe who clearly pushes well over the line to get people to have the wrong impression.

    Whatever point he was trying to make is lost in his wannabe persona,

  28. Some of these folks are really over thinking the OC issue. The gun does not matter, at all, where it is carried, does not matter at all. All that matters is INTENT. If your intent is to be a loud mouth dingleberry that will come across no matter how you carry. The video above is proof of this. The only people who can take guns away are elected officials enacting laws, so elect wisely. If the Sandy hook massacre didn’t end in gun confiscation, OC mall ninjas definitely aren’t going to cause it either. Comfort carry, as in, carry however you are comfortable. I care only about your intent, the gun is just a tool…..

  29. While I prefer concealed carry, I do not have a problem with open carry.

    I do question the rationale for open carrying a long gun in public these days. In most cases it comes off as a poorly planned political stunt with no practical benefit, unless negative backlash is somehow the goal. If the rule of law somehow ends then, yeah, the rifles are coming out and it won’t matter what people think. Until then, that kind of behavior seems to be counter-productive.

    I would like to see more people (safely) open carrying pistols. Around here the folks that do it tend to not use retention holsters and I find that… ill-advised at best.

    • “I do question the rationale for open carrying a long gun in public these days. In most cases it comes off as a poorly planned political stunt with no practical benefit, unless negative backlash is somehow the goal.”

      So, which “poorly planned political stunt” are you referring to? One of the many that were held on public property with all permits in place? Or, the one held on private property (Chipotle) with the permission of the manager, several cops present and numerous patrons also present that were reported as being “not bothered” by the display at all?

      One of the key problems we have that really needs to be addressed is to stop relying solely on the MSM and Progressive Media presentation of stories like the OC activism in TX. The press mischaracterized quite a few of those ‘events,’ yet PotG are so quick to jump all over the LIE VERSION as truth to eat our own.

  30. not that I would ever open carry, but this bounty hunter guy is a d-bag wanna be. If you want someone to take you seriously speak in somewhat civilized tone, not like the thugs your trying to find.

    Disclaimer…I do not support LGBT….but how do you suppose that particular group (which is very small) of our society has “fundamentally changed” our countries laws over the last several decades. They have exercised their first amendment rights, been very vocal, and now the “silent majority” is considered haters if you don’t support them.

    Like it or not, we should not hinder their freedom of expression (open carriers).
    One exception..This does not apply to people who burn the American flag…..they should be drawn and quartered. 🙂

  31. So many concern trolls in one comment section. Open carry on, because we can. The antis aren’t giving an inch. Neither am I.

  32. It’s about time that “semi-open carry” is deployed en-masse.

    I semi-open carry almost every day. A 38 snubby in a OWB mostly covered by a shirt or vest, is poking out quite frequently. The shirt gets hiked up, or upon bending-over or reaching for snacks on a convenience store shelf it is exposed.

    Sometimes other folks notice, but give it no mind. Folks generally don’t care.

    From time to time (rarely) folks say:”is that a gun?”, or “psst – “your gun is showing”

    I usually say “yes” and/or “thank you”.

    Then we all go about our business. No strain, no pain.

    Never had a problem. Never had a snotty comment. Never.

    Of course, I don’t wear tacticool garb, haven’t tattooed my neck, haven’t pierced my eyebrow, and don’t dress like a gangster or other variety of scumbag either.

    Oh yes, I’ve had a CPL longer than most people on this earth have been alive, but I’ve never needed to show it to anyone.

    • “From time to time (rarely) folks say:”is that a gun?”, or “psst – “your gun is showing”

      I usually say “yes” and/or “thank you”.

      Then we all go about our business. No strain, no pain.”

      That’s more interaction I’ve had with strangers when I’ve overtly Open Carried. {shrug}

    • I have “semi” open carried in the west loop of Chicago. And you know what CPD did, they waived and I waved back. FYI, we don’t have open carry in Illinois, but the law states “mostly concealed”

    • lol…. “your gun is showing”…..i’ve had ladies say that to me…to which I reply…”i am just happy to see you”

  33. I don’t open carry but I imagine this is pretty infuriating coming from a bounty hunter.l a pretty much unregulated “law enforcement” deputy (who apparently has a YouTube show??). Bounty hunters have virtually no regulations on how they behave; they routinely hit the wrong houses looking for fugitives and almost never get in trouble for breaking and entering, firing at or even killing family members or pets. Not the most “liberty loving” profession, nor one that practices concealing weapons. You think Dog the Bounty hunter has honestly had a better effect on gun normalization than open carriers? Lol

  34. Paraphrasing Macklemore:

    It’s just a .38 Dan, chill the fuck out. Drive your damn car and calm the hell down.

  35. WOW a you tube video spouting COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a first!

    I agree 100% with this guy. It makes me sick when I see these Mall Ninja Idiots walking around in public with their SKS slung over their shoulder…..”Look at me, I can tote this anywhere I want and you Pig’s can’t stop me”! Just because you can doesn’t mean you should, all these guys do it for is ATTENTION!!

        • Bounty hunters of old were scum, also. People despised them, but the people hired them, and were quite pleased when the bounty hunter removed from life an outlaw scum. Like the man said, everybody wants the job done, none want to dirty their hands.

  36. I bet his main objective was to get YouTube hits. He’ll probably get them but for many of the wrong reasons.

    I was put off by his offensive language and driving behavior – taking his eyes off the road.

    I was also distracted by his costume (yes, costume). He could have worn something else that didn’t scream mall cop.

    He has some valid points but I won’t intentionally watch any more of his productions.

  37. The only thing more potent at fighting the 2nd than a grass-roots Anti movement screaming their heads of at pols to do something, is a grass-roots movement of Pros agreeing with them.

  38. Hmm, Kentucky has always had open carry and has seen fit to outlaw the practice of bounty hunting/bail enforcement. Sounds like we got a couple right for a change.

  39. Until such time as this guy makes, passes or enacts any laws, I’ll do what my state says is legal.
    I have open carried a few times and was asked by an older lady in Mejiers if I was a police officer. I answered no and she went on her way. No screaming, yelling or fear. That was the only time I was asked.
    Got gas, went and paid my cell phone bill and bought a few tools I needed for work. Nobody batted an eye at me.
    Could someone take my pistol from me? Yes they could. They could steal my car too. They could take my boots off my feet also. If someone wants something bad enough, they’ll find a way.
    Most of the time I do carry concealed though and someone could take my pistol just as easily.
    Carry how you want to carry, easy as that.

  40. “As an open carrier I believe that openly carried firearms are the key to gun normalization, ”

    The only “gun normal” places are war zones.

    OC only pushes people into the corner of the opposition.

    • “OC only pushes people into the corner of the opposition.”

      Citation Needed.

      It seems that the only people that are bothered by OC are:

      (a) Hard Core anti’s that no matter what, how or when you carry, or even just OWN a firearm, it’s “wrong” in their eyes

      and

      (b) People that profess to be PotG that, for some very strange reason, allow those in Group (a) to dictate who we are and how we should act.

      If the mere sight of a firearm causes you to wet your panties, maybe the problem lies within and not with the person openly carrying an inanimate object.

  41. So if I understand this correctly, using my rights too much might get them infringed? Zat right, Kitty-face?

  42. Stu appears to be guilty of the same thing he is accusing the OC’ers – being an innertubz $@7# jack-wagon.

    Stu, lose the wannabe spiderman outfit, will ya?

  43. He lost me at the 12 second mark with his “Down South second amendment enhthusiast motherfuckers”.

    My four letter word response is; “F**k you, hippie!”.

    That is all.

    Charlie

  44. Three minutes of my life have been wasted. I’m glad he has his own opinions, but weapons are not just for work.

    The truths he attempts to rebut are uncomfortable and they must make him feel so, but that doesn’t make them wrong or ill-advised. TTAG and its viewers have been split down the middle on this issue for quite a while and I’m glad to read the comments and see some honest discourse going on.

    Normalization is the key; no one ever said “I’m so glad that I hid my exercise of my rights because now I am more free!” The founding fathers did not write these precious amendments to be used when it is “comfortable” to do so.

  45. I can’t prove whether carrying openly helps or hinders the advancement of our 2nd amendment rights. I just know what works best for me. Among those of us who choose to carry, I feel the most important issue on which we must agree is that we do, in fact, carry. How and what we carry are personal choices that are tempered by so many personal considerations that is often difficult to express how we made those choices.

    During my 34 years as a soldier, I had a strategic mission to protect the entire nation. Now that I am retired, my mission is tactical; to protect myself and my loved ones.

    I’ve done my due diligence, considered the tactical and strategic issues, accounted for my capabilities and limitations. Carrying openly works best for me. Since 2013, I have carried openly each day. Mostly on my own property in Texas, but also when visiting AZ, CO, NM, and OK.

    I would rather that carrying openly was the norm. I would rather that carrying openly be as accepted in Texas as it is in other states. Reality is otherwise. This tempers my carrying.

    As with most things in life, it comes down to which risks we are willing to manage and which benefits matter most. I will continue to carry openly when I can, conceal as the situation dictates, and disarm only if I must.

    Be safe, and carry on.

    O. Lee James, III
    Captain, US Army Retired
    Honorable Order of St Barbara
    NRA Life Member, TSRA, NAR L1

  46. I bet this douche rubs one out while looking in the mirror with that “arrest team” vest on and his two-way walkie-talkie, what a troll.

  47. I’m really glad to see I’m not the only person who open carries and doesn’t do it to troll cops and citizens and liberals.

    • No, you’re not the only one. There are tens of thousands of us who open carry holstered handguns daily.

Leave a Reply

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