Three Reasons You Shouldn’t Open Carry a Rifle in the City

Michael LaMay (courtesy

Click here to watch the autoplay video of a Muskegon Heights, Michigan man who carries a rifle to and from the bus stop to protect his daughter. “I’ve been doing this on a daily basis, every day she goes to school. To make sure she gets there safely and home safely,” Michael LaMay told So far so good. And Mr. LeMay has every right to do so. But c’mon. Really? Here are three reason why you shouldn’t open carry a rifle in a non-apocalyptic urban environment. . .

1. Open carrying a long gun in a city isn’t very handy

Most long gun open carriers use a sling to schlep their rifle/shotgun, leaving their hands free for the things people need hands for when they’re out and about. Yes, well, have you tried carrying a rifle with a sling all day? Or even a few hours? They damn thing gets mighty cumbersome mighty quick. Talk about chafing!

2. Open carrying a long gun in a city isn’t tactically sound

While I’m sure that most long gun carriers are more operationally operational than Mr. LeMay (a scoped Savage?), it’s not easy bringing a long gun into action – unless you carry the firearm in the low- or high-ready position. Which tends to scare good guy non-combatants even more than normal.

A [non low- or high-ready] long gun’s especially clunky to bring to bear compared to a properly holstered handgun. Especially when that properly holstered handgun is being carried openly (should open carry be what floats your boat).

Also, the armed civilian’s first and best response to a lethal threat is to escape or evade the attacker(s). Running with a long gun isn’t all that easy either. Add a daughter to the team and how are you going to grab her and bring your long gun to bear and fire while running for cover or concealment? Not that you couldn’t have a handgun as well, but you know what I mean.

3. Open carrying a long gun in the city makes you the target

I’m not speaking here of the “shoot-me-first” conundrum that is open carry, generally. I’m talking about responding police officers.

AFTER an attack, when your gun’s hot and the perp is not, you want to put your gun away. [NB: That’s providing you’re no longer in danger. If you are in danger, hang on to your gun, leave the scene, holster ASAP and call 911. You have no legal obligation to disarm or remain at a dangerous crime scene.] A long gun isn’t easy to holster, is it? A cop sees you at an urban crime holding a long gun? Say goodnight Dick.

And, of course, there’s the “he’s a spree killer!” prejudice against people carrying long guns in urban environments. What’s that all about? I remember when teachers carried rifles to school to use as blackboard pointers. Yes, well, as Mr. LeMay discovered, the police didn’t get the memo from 1957. So it is what it is. And what it is is SWAT bait. Or . . . it stops being bad guy protection when the police (and neighbors with proverbial pitch forks) start thinking the bad guy is you.

Better to open carry a handgun. If you want deterrence, it’s gotta be a Smith & Wesson 686 in a proper holster. It’s eye candy for the kids! It’s nostalgia for the oldies! It’s death-on-a-stick for the bad guys! As opposed to the scary ass (to the po-po and the public) boom stick that is an openly carried long gun.


  1. avatar Ardent says:

    Tactically unsound and hard to bring into action? Don’t we always say that a pistol is what you used to fight your way back to your rifle?

    While being obviously armed does present some tactical disadvantages, openly carrying a rifle has got to be a 99.999% deterrent. There are just too many unarmed people to go goofing with the one guy who brought a rifle to the party. The press coverage likely helps, if you know that there is going to be a guy schlepping a rifle around the block perhaps crime pays better somewhere else.

    That is an odd choice for a defensive arm, but the first rule is have a gun, and perhaps that’s the only gun he has.

    1. avatar Nighthawk says:

      it’s a very inexpensive gun, a $1000 AR is probably out of his price range and a $500 bolt gun might be a bit impractical. Cheapy .22 is good enough for him. Also the people whining about open carry, just stop being ridiculous. It’s a right protected by law. If you don’t like it, treat as you would hate speech and move away from it.

      1. If he insists on openly carrying a long gun to protect his daughter, I’d think he’d have enough common sense to get himself an inexpensive shotgun, load it up, and go from there. A whole lot more effective than lugging that scoped hunting rifle around.

        1. avatar Jeremy says:

          Generally I agree with that. There might be a reason he chose the rifle though which has yet to be explained.

        2. avatar John L. says:

          Perhaps, cost aside, it would be illegal to do so where he lives.

          I don’t know the Michigan law in detail, but I do recall they vary not only by type of firearm (pistol, rifle, shotgun) but also by location within the state.

          All that aside .. It’s not my choice to make, it’s his.

        3. avatar Hugh Glass says:

          The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. “Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?”
          “NO Ma’am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.”

        4. avatar peirsonb says:

          Forget whether or not open carry is valid, consider WHERE he’s open carrying.

          I grew up in that area. In Muskegon Heights today I’d be carrying a back up rifle as well….

      2. avatar Ben says:

        The right to open carry a rifle is beside the point. There’s a time when things are a good idea, and a time when those same things are a bad idea. If I was to walk down Compton yelling out “Nigger” as loud as I could, even though I have the right to free speech, does that make it a good idea? Hell no.

        Just, for the love of God, Allah, science, whatever, don’t be stupid in your actions. Don’t take the attitude of “It’s MY rights and fuck anyone else who has a problem with me exercising MY rights”. You’re taking the same attitude as those who would seek to take your guns, or the rights to possess and carry them, from you. Use discretion.

        1. Succinctly put.

          I’d like to see the OC-fanatics crowd exercise their First Amendment rights in the way you describe.

          That would be “interesting.”

          I fear the point will still be lost on the radical OC advocates.

        2. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

          You’re torturing the analogy. Yes, it’s a comparison, of sorts, of the exercise of two rights, but the similarities end there and so should the validity of any conclusions drawn.

        3. No “torturing” at all, you just don’t happen to like it because it underscores the stupidity of the kind of unthinking, fanatical OC thinking we see on this blog site each time the issue comes up.

        4. avatar Pseudo says:

          I rarely find myself agreeing with Paul, but he’s got you here. Like the whole chipotle thing: sure, you’re allowed to do it, but why would you when it’s deliberately provocative? If “I’m legally allowed to do this” is your best justification, you’re probably doing it wrong. This guy is worried about protecting his daughter. Fine. The reason I got into guns was for personal protection. Concealed carry is a much more effective and less provocative/dangerous option. Plus, dude leading around a young girl while toting a rifle makes law enforcement jump to a completely different conclusion…

        5. avatar ThomasR says:

          Paul. You haven’t sat down and talked with this man as to why he made this decision; the crime rates for the Muskegon heights, (as Googled) is five times the national average. OC’ing a gun might be the best action to a possible verbal or actual threat made towards him or his daughter. Making definitive statements as to his motivations before all the facts are is, Ummm, inadvisable.

          Mean while you continue with your hypocrisy in your continuing ad-hominem attacks in your attempts to dehumanize and degrade gun owners you disagree with, “the stupidity of the kind of unthinking, fanatical OC thinking we see on this blog site each time the issue comes up.”

          One of many examples of your continuing of “do as I say and not as I do”.
          You may not realize that to use character attacks when you are threatened by another persons beliefs or actions you disagree with is a very strong sign of insecurity.

        6. Why does everyone agreeing with me lately have to preface their remarks by saying they don’t often agree with me?

          Can’t we all just get along?

          Bring it in for a big group hug, except you, Anon.

          Go pound sand, or your pet monkey, whatever works for you bro.

        7. avatar William Burke says:

          Are you familiar with the expression, “…. FLYING LEAP”?

        8. avatar William Burke says:

          FLAME DELETED. I know what you are, McCain. You can’t help but reveal it. Third-rate employee.

        9. ThomasR, have you noticed that you rarely, if ever, have anything of any substance to contribute to conversations on TTAG, other than to whine about how you don’t like my posts, accuse me of ad hominem, while indulging it in it yourself?

          Kind of funny, if you ask me.

          Now run along and have your mommy wipe your tears, pat you on the head and tell you what a good boy you are.


        10. avatar ThomasR says:

          Oh, Paul: And your continued inability to disagree with someone without using derogatory, demeaning and insulting remarks. Either you are a twelve year old trying to act like a grown up and failing miserably; or you are an adult that never learned what the word mature meant.

        11. avatar William Burke says:

          Or he’s on someone’s salary. You missed that one.

        12. avatar ThomasR says:

          Yeah; WB; Paul actually accused two other posters of being paid government stooges; it is strange that he would say such thing. Maybe it was a guilty conscious; or an attempt at deflection. It would explain a lot.

        13. avatar William Burke says:

          Yeah, I saw that. Make of it what you may. I know I’m watching.

    2. avatar Calvin says:

      +1 A sling is not a handle or a purse strap. A sling is the one accessory I have on all my rifles. It’s part of my stance and I practice bringing the gun to bear from a slung position. Make sure it is adjusted to the proper length and know how to carry it so it can come from your back to on target all while being an asset, not a nuisance.

      -1 on the scope though, for many reasons I’m too lazy to detail here

      1. Maybe you can show us how well you do bringing a hunting rifle with the sling this guy has, on target, and making accurate shots at a moving target from, oh, let’s say, ten yards away with a hunting scope.

        THAT is one of the major points of RF’s article.

        1. avatar Calvin says:

          I don’t know what difference “hunting” makes. His tools not tacticool enough for you? My battle rifles are more manageable with a sling that without so whatever this carries is not as bulky as a Mosin or Mauser. But don’t believe me. I’m only repeating what Appleseed, Elmer Keith and many others have said.

          As to 10 yards, you pulled that distance out of your backside; but at any range I’d rather have a rifle or shotgun than a handgun. A target is only moving relative to your position if it’s trying to get past you. 1000 yards or 2 if it’s closing on you the bearing doesn’t change. Now I have to carry a trench gun to satisfy the mission requirements of your tactical fantasies?

        2. avatar Anon says:

          Where do you live where you’re legally allowed to shoot someone at 10 yards and call it “defense”? You have some issues.

        3. Anon, you betray your ignorance, again.

          How fast can a person holding a knife get to you from thirty feet away?

          Answer that question and you, maybe, will get this figured out.

        4. avatar David_TheMan says:

          depends on the person McCain.

        5. avatar Anon says:

          @Paul T McCain


        6. avatar Ben says:

          At 5′ 9″, I have a 22″ stride when walking normally. At a sprint, 10 yards would be a few seconds. You’d either have to be really fucking quick and really fucking lucky to unlimber that rifle and get an accurate shot off before I’m on you.

          This is all assuming someone charges you from a distance instead of just walking up and sticking you once said person’s within arm’s reach. Or would you just point your gun at any swinging dick that happens to be walking on the sidewalk at the same time as you?

        7. avatar Anon says:

          @Paul T McCain

          Since the MDA, oops, I mean TTAG, censorati have deleted my reply, I’ll answer your question again:

          If you were the knife-wielding person in question, I would have 30 minutes for you to traverse the 30 ft due to your … physique. I would have time to sit there, have a cup of coffee, and walk away while you took 5 breaks, wheezing, on the way there.

        8. avatar David_TheMan says:

          You are assuming the person is staying still or is going to shot you with the rifle instead of striking you with it to get space and then firing.

          fact is no one knows how fast he is capable in getting his weapon in the ready, his fighting experience, and etc.

          So its absurd to talk with any certainty at all about the weapon he is carrying or how its worthless or untacticool and etc.

          Its a damn shame when the mayor of the town offers more support for the man in saying what he is doing is perfectly legal, than a supposed pro 2nd amendment gun blog

    3. avatar Tominator says:

      Those were my thoughts as well. More power to him!

      I have carried a rifle all day. Know how to run with it as well.

      My pistol is used to get to my long gun….but then I have to pick one. 🙂

    4. avatar ThomasR says:

      I read the rest of the post Ardent; you make one of the most calm, rational and sound statement as the first post; and then it goes downhill from there.

      I noticed that the man said that as long as he is “living in Muskegon heights” he would keep carrying the gun to pick up his daughter.

      So what’s so special about Muskegon Heights? I googled crime rates for the M.H., it turns out to have five times the national average for violent crime rates. It doesn’t go into detail as to if there was a defining event that caused this man to make this type of choice about OC’ing a rifle to protect his daughter. But I bet you there is an actual personal threat that was said or done to this man or his daughter to have him make this decision.

      To me, many of the posts are really just projections of each persons prejudice for or against OC’ing. without the information to make an informed decision on whether this man was being reasonable or not.

    5. avatar William Burke says:

      ” if you know that there is going to be a guy schlepping a rifle around the block perhaps crime pays better somewhere else. ”

      Hoo-RAH! It’s obvious, despite whatever Joe Friday always said, that crime DOES pay. Or else there wouldn’t be many criminals.

      And the best we can ever do is to ensure that, by our actions and our preparation, the crime will go someplace else.


  2. avatar Rick says:

    Love all these fruitcakes open carrying rifles into restaurants and bus stops. Even the Marines leave their weapons outside the chow hall.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      Not when I was in Al-Taji they didn’t.

    2. avatar Jeremy says:

      They do? Since when? Maybe during basic, but not when its real.

    3. avatar Josh says:

      Aside from boot camp, where you’d have a gear guard posted, I’ve never seen a Marine leave his rifle, pistol, or weapon outside any DFAC in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, or wherever else that we might carry. Walk up to the clearing barrel, go Condition 4, step on in, get your chow, maintain control of your weapon while eating, get up, and go. All with your weapon on your person. The furthest a weapon would wander would be our SAW gunners resting their weapons underneath them on the floor, bipod down, muzzle away.

      1. avatar Tominator says:

        Thanks Josh!
        A soldier should ALWAYS be armed!

    4. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

      Are you kidding me? Some of the most infamous spree killings with the highest body counts have been carried out in restaurants. The Luby’s Cafeteria Massacre. The Port Arthur Massacre. The San Ysidro McDonald’s shooting. There’s also Britain’s Levy Bellfield, aka “The Bus Stop Killer”, whose victims included a 13 year old schoolgirl.

      These are just off the top of my head and I could likely think of others. These should suffice to rebut the notion that restaurants and bus stops are some kind of magic fairy-protected safe zones where nothing sinister could ever happen and only “fruitcakes” think otherwise.

    5. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Don’t believe what you see in movies.

    6. avatar William Burke says:

      You and your FLAME DELETED name-calling again.

      It ain’t flattering, and it sure as HELL ain’t free.

    7. avatar UnapologeticallyAmerican says:

      show me a Marine that is more than arms-length from his/her weapon, and I will show you a Marine about to get chewed out by his/her Gunnery Sergeant

  3. avatar Sheepdog6 says:

    Lets try not to dive into the “Open carry is bad” pool all at once as an overreaction to a couple of jackwagons in Texas.

    1. It’s not just a couple of jackwagons, it is way too many people who are so rabidly advocating for open carry they will not even pause for a moment to consider tactics, sound reasoning, and proper behavior for open carrying and, if they are doing it to “make a statement” not consider that they are only, pardon the expression, shooting themselves in the foot.

      1. avatar Ken Adams says:

        So Paul, you agree with the 2nd Amendment, but with conditions, exclusions, and asterisks? In other words, you don’t?!?

        1. Wow, Ken, you’ve seen right through me! You are right. I do not support the Second Amendment. Yes. Spot on.

          Face palm.

        2. avatar Ben says:

          Again, the tone-deafness of some people boggle the mind. There’s an appropriate time to exercise your rights, and then there’s an inappropriate time.

          If I walked into a gay bar and yelled out “Fuck all you faggots, First Amendment bitch!”, even though I do have the right to free speech, that doesn’t make it a good idea to say what I did.

          Don’t be dumb, please. You only make it worse for yourself and everyone else.

        3. avatar Paul G. says:

          He only supports rights when hidden from view. He disguises his church as a Wal-Mart so as to not offend people of other religions….wouldn’t want to be considered a first amendment fanatic.

        4. avatar William Burke says:

          Damn straight, he doesn’t. Give thanks and praise Paul McCain isn’t on my shoulder, chirruping in my ear.

      2. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

        And yet, Paul, despite the antics of these jack wagons rabidly (which implies they’re crazy) demonstrating for open carry, we have BOTH major party candidates for Texas Governor this year vowing to support open carry legislation. Of course, the Democrat is lying straight through her capped teeth, but it still speaks volumes that even a lying liberal must pretend to favor open carry if she’s to be taken seriously in the race. So much for your “shooting themselves in the foot” crazy man theory. I imagine the sting of being so wrong gets easier with such great frequency as you’ve experienced, right?

        1. It is quite in spite of the idiots, not because of them.

        2. avatar Paul G. says:

          Yes….you have it right! The two candidates back OC in spite of idiots like you denouncing it, and because plenty of savvy firearms owners with suitable amounts of gray matter have made their opinions on the matter clear.

  4. avatar David_TheMan says:

    None of your reasons for dismissing his open carry are valid.
    They are your opinion and pretty ill informed and reasoned on top of that.

    1. Open carrying a long gun isn’t handy, guess you should tell the soldiers worldwide how unhandy carrying a long gun is. Oh that is right, you are conflating your personal opinion with a fact.

    Handy is subjective, if the man remembers to open carry and does it in a responsible way I don’t see how you can claim the act isn’t hand to him.

    2. Tactically sound? Are you serious. Again guess we should tell all the police in the US and around the world who are armed and openly carry that they aren’t doing it right. They need to put articles of clothing over their weapon, then if they need it they can do a tactically sound shirt sweep. SMH.

    Tactics are determined by the situation internet commando. You can’t objectively say anything is doing in open carrying is sound or unsound because their is no situation to apply his actions and critique. Stop spouting non-sense and thinking you are making a point. You arent.

    3. How does open carrying a long gun make you a target?
    Oh police might shoot you, are you serious?
    Police shooting innocent people happens when people don’t even have guns, and most importantly from a logical stance that is on the police and the US justice system which encourages them to shoot first and ask questions later, not on a legally responsible gun owner and carrier.

    Look I know you want hits, but you really should put out better formed articles than this. Garbage articles like this do this site a disservice, it makes the site seem like it is run by a bunch of Call of duty wannabe commandos.


      “1. Open carrying a long gun isn’t handy, guess you should tell the soldiers worldwide how unhandy carrying a long gun is. Oh that is right, you are conflating your personal opinion with a fact.”

      They are soldiers in active combat zones, carrying their AR rifles on two point slings, usually in low ready, with quick target acquiring optics. This guy is schlepping a hunting rifle with a scope. He could not get off a kill shot quickly enough no matter how hard he tried were some BG to come up to him with a handgun.

      Plus, show me examples of police routinely walking around with their scoped sniper rifles on patrol.


      “2. Tactically sound? Are you serious. Again guess we should tell all the police in the US and around the world who are armed and openly carry that they aren’t doing it right”

      If you would have bothered to read RF’s comments, you would see he is talking about THIS guy carring a scoped hunting rifle. The police carry their sidearms openly. Huge difference. No, the guy was not doing it right.

      “You can’t objectively say anything is doing in open carrying is sound or unsound because their is no situation to apply his actions and critique. Stop spouting non-sense and thinking you are making a point. You arent.”

      English syntax fail.
      Proper writing. You don’t has it.

      “3. How does open carrying a long gun make you a target?
      from a logical stance that is on the police and the US justice system which encourages them to shoot first and ask questions later, not on a legally responsible gun owner and carrier.”

      From a logical stance what you said just makes no sense. RF’s point is that if you stroll around with your scoped hunting rifle, yes, you do make yourself a “target” for the police who will, logically, be somewhat interested in a man strolling his neighborhood with a hunting rifle.

      Logic. You don’t has it.

      “Look I know you want hits, but you really should put out better formed articles than this. Garbage articles like this do this site a disservice, it makes the site seem like it is run by a bunch of Call of duty wannabe commandos.”

      Seems to me that the only Call of Duty wannabe here is the guy carrying his Savage hunting rifle with a big old hunting optic on it.

      1. avatar Lord Wulfgen says:

        Dammit, Paul, you beat me. I had to brew coffee before responding to that non-sense.

        1. Sorry….I had already had three big cups.

          : )

      2. avatar David_TheMan says:

        So let me get this straight.

        The critique is that open carrying a rifle is not handy, I bring up that obviously it is handy for the man doing it and it seems handy to soldiers in warzones. To this your response is but those are modern rifles, he is carrying a hunting rifle. You seem to really believe the type of rifle matters with regard to the response I made which is that obviously the rifle is comfortable to him and obviously open carrying a long rifle is demonstrably handy to the people who do it with their life on the line.

        You do this and have the nerve to call those who support open carry as being mentally unsound. SMH

        I read the post, open carrying itself even with a hunting rifle and scope is not tactically unsound until we have a actual situation which to put the action in context. That is what you and the author don’t seem to understand. Tactically is derived from Tactics, tactics are the though process of completing a task. We aren’t presented with a task to complete so any talk of tactics or an action being tactically unsound is ridiculous on its face because there is nothing to evaluate. Its nothing more than back patting by anti-open carry advocates to try to give weight to their preference of concealed carry. Typical of the action of most anti-gunners actually.

        Now the final point, I’m sorry if what I wrote makes no sense to you. It is pretty clear though and I don’t have the ability to think for you. The fact is the police’s actions are just that the action of the police, not the gun owner. If the gun owner is legally meeting all his obligations then he is not at fault for the police violating his right because of their own fears. So again, its a bogus argument that logically is close to blaming a woman being raped for “dressing sexy”.

        Get it together man.

        Stop trying to attack people on your side like your critiques are anything else other than your opinion.

        1. Ah, the Dude makes his appearance at this point:

        2. avatar Lord Wulfgen says:

          [The critique is that open carrying a rifle is not handy, I bring up that obviously it is handy for the man doing it and it seems handy to soldiers in warzones.] [You seem to really believe the type of rifle matters with regard to the response I made which is that obviously the rifle is comfortable to him]

          See my post below. Rifle carry in a war zone is a necessity, it is not comfortable. Carrying a holstered handgun is more comfortable than slinging a rifle, that is just a fact, not really an opinion. If you say otherwise, you haven’t carried a rifle long enough.

          [I read the post, open carrying itself even with a hunting rifle and scope is not tactically unsound until we have a actual situation which to put the action in context.]

          We ARE talking about a specific situation, with context. If you had read and comprehended the post, you would know that we are discussing a man who carries a rifle every day to the bus stop with his daughter. I suppose if he really wanted to be “tactically sound”, he could cover her from a concealed position, and be ready to snipe the waves of hajis that will be attacking. But carrying a slung, scoped rifle while walking in the suburbs? I guarantee a holstered handgun would be faster into action.

          [Tactically is derived from Tactics, tactics are the though process of completing a task.]


          [Now the final point, I’m sorry if what I wrote makes no sense to you. It is pretty clear though and I don’t have the ability to think for you. The fact is the police’s actions are just that the action of the police, not the gun owner. If the gun owner is legally meeting all his obligations then he is not at fault for the police violating his right because of their own fears. So again, its a bogus argument that logically is close to blaming a woman being raped for “dressing sexy”.

          Get it together man.]

          Again, we are not discussing the ethics of police shootings here, wrong article. I know a lot of people jump at the chance to blame the cops for almost anything, but that is just not the point here. You may not be at fault if you get accidentally shot by the police while brandishing your rifle at a crime scene, and you may have all of the righteous justice of the heavens on your side, but you will still be just as dead. I’ll stick to my handgun.

        3. avatar David_TheMan says:

          I saw your critique wulfgren and it still does not address the contention I made.
          the charged levied by RF was that open carrying a long rifle is not handy.
          To that I said sure it is handy to open carry a long rifle, if it wasn’t soldiers in warzones and policing the world over wouldn’t shoulder rifles.

          carrying a holster handgun might be more handy to you, but obviously it isn’t more handy for this person. See again, handy is relative to the individual involved, you can’t transpose your feelings and preferences onto someone else.

          No we aren’t talking about a specific situation, because he is simply walking his daughter to school armed. There is no situation to evaluate any tactics because the only objective he has is walking his daughter to the bus stop and picking her up from the bus stop. So I guess while you are fighting a war in your head of what could, should, and might happen, he is living his life, protecting himself and protecting his daughter with his weapon of choice. Really end of the discussion after that.

          You aren’t discussing the ethics of shooting but you are saying he is to blame if he gets killed by a cop because he is exercising his right.

          Like I said before your stance is akin to blaming a woman for getting raped for “dressing too sexy” It isn’t a law abiding citizens job to make sure everything in their life is done to appease cops. It is the cop’s responsibility to make sure that he performs his actions properly. Period.

          So the whole critique of making himself a target for the police is a non starter, because it isn’t the gun owners job to provide the police anything, especially, ESPECIALLY when he is exercising his rights and not violating the law.

        4. avatar Dave says:

          Not sure I should jump in the middle of this, but a coupla things stuck out as I’ve read the back and forth’s here.

          One of the sticking points seems to revolve around whether or not carrying a scoped hunting rifle around is ‘handy’. Handy is subjective with no obvious right or wrong answer. If all you own is a hunting rifle with a scope, and you want to be armed when you’re out and about, it’s pretty handy. Right? But if you own a sidearm, along with that rifle, then no – most would say it’s not nearly as handy for what this dude is doing.

          Tactics. Another very subjective point. Whether or not it’s tactically sound to carry around a scoped hunting rifle depends on your goals, your environment, and your training. If you want to hunt deer, it’s obviously tactically sound to carry around a scoped hunting rifle. If you live in town, wish to be armed, and only own a scoped hunting rifle, it’s tactically sound to carry said rifle. Now, is it the most tactically sound move possible? Again, depends. If he has a sidearm, I’d say no. Unless he’s carrying low and ready, he isn’t going to be able bring that rifle to bear nearly as quickly, or as securely, as a holstered sidearm. Especially if he is accosted from behind. If he finds himself in an ‘announced’ SD situation, where he can see the threat coming and has time to take cover and prepare, the rifle will be superior. If he’s attacked without warning, odds are that rifle will be difficult to bring into action and a different weapon would be preferable.

          We can go on and on and debate tactics all day, coming up with scenario after scenario, and not have a clear answer. It’s probably why the gun market is so diverse.

          I will say this though – the idea that something is a ‘right’, and because of that ‘dammit I’m going to do it’ and there’s nothing wrong with that is itself, wrong. Principle and the reality of our current political environment are often at opposing ends of the spectrum. People use the ‘if I yell nigger’ in the hood as an analogy, and frankly, it’s an accurate one. Because of stuff like that, we now have hate speech laws on the books that openly infringe on the 1st Amendment, in the same way that CC laws, open carry laws, etc, infringe on the 2nd. So while carrying a rifle around town may very well be your right, I’m not of the opinion that’s it’s the best way to secure the future of that right.

          We need to be very thoughtful and give consideration to the bigger picture when we decide to become activists.

          Anyway, carry on (pun intended)…

        5. avatar Lord Wulfgen says:


          [See again, handy is relative to the individual involved, you can’t transpose your feelings and preferences onto someone else.]

          What in the world makes you think I am trying to “transpose” my feelings and preferences on someone else? I think his choice is a poor one, but he can do as he pleases. When you carry out actions in public, you must expect that there will be scrutiny of your actions. My expressed opinion is in no way a command to anyone, or even an attempt to say that he shouldn’t be able to do it.

          [No we aren’t talking about a specific situation, because he is simply walking his daughter to school armed. There is no situation to evaluate any tactics because the only objective he has is walking his daughter to the bus stop and picking her up from the bus stop.]

          That….is a specific situation. Unless the man comes under fire from a dug in position at least dozens of meters away, I can’t see a situation where the rifle would be a good choice. And again, just to reinforce, I am NOT saying he shouldn’t be able to do it, I am just saying that I think it is a poor choice. That is my opinion, no more, no less.

          [So I guess while you are fighting a war in your head of what could, should, and might happen]


          [he is living his life, protecting himself and protecting his daughter with his weapon of choice.]

          Good for him. Have I said he shouldn’t want to protect his daughter?

          [You aren’t discussing the ethics of shooting but you are saying he is to blame if he gets killed by a cop because he is exercising his right.]

          Lamenting the likely outcome of a choice is not the same as saying he should be “blamed”. I believe it is not unlikely that he would be shot by the police in a crisis, however my estimation of the odds is not ascribing blame, per se. As I have stated, my arguments have nothing to do with the ethics involved, that is another debate for another day. However, exercising rights comes with responsibility. And AGAIN, I am not saying he shouldn’t have the right, I am merely expressing my opinion on his actions.

          Also, your rape analogy is ridiculous.

        6. avatar Pseudo says:

          Dude, think for a second about about your logic on the third point. This has nothing to do with who would be at fault if the police erroneously shot a person legally open carrying. The argument is you’re INVITING the behavior, making you and your daughter less safe. Sure, you’re legally allowed and the cop would be violating the law, but it’s making such an event more likely which is strictly counterproductive. That cops shoot unarmed people erroneously is completely irrelevant to this point.

        7. avatar David_TheMan says:

          If you have a problem with a right, that is your issue.
          There is absolutely nothing wrong with exercising a right.
          Now I know in your mind you might think you are simply being “reasonable” just like the anti-2nd amendment advocates, just like the anti-1960s boycotters and civil rights activists who though blacks should just be model minorities and that would solve their issues rather than bringing it to attention.
          It is a losing strategy and it is the strategy those who would see the protections on are rights removed.

          A right not exercised is a right lost.
          Now its clear to see you are on the side of if something offends your sensibilities it isn’t just against your sensibilities it is now in your view “ethically” or/and “morally” wrong and that is sad to see but atleast you are open in your view that gun ownership is a privilege not a right.(This is what you have expressed)

        8. avatar David_TheMan says:


          You are inviting the police to harm you illegally by exercising your right? Okay. Like I said before that is the exact same reasoning in blaming the victim of a rape for “dressing too sexy”. Fact is you aren’t inviting anything wrong or malicious in exercising your constitutional right and following the law.

          You can try to dress it up all you want, but the 3rd point is simply blaming a potential victim of poor police work for exercising a constitutionally protected right.

          If you think the 2nd amendment grants a state privilege of gun ownership just say so outright, but as of right now the 2nd amendment protects what the fuonders believed was a natural right of gun ownership free of government restriction. That means if you are exercising your right and following the law there is absolutely no grounds for you to be assaulted, kidnapped, or beaten and killed by the state for doing so. Period.

          Seems when it comes to OC’ing a lot of you aren’t 2nd amendment supporters at all, you are just statists in sheep clothing, who would no sooner use the state to violate their restrictions to enforce your own opinions just like the anti-gunners and hoplophobes.

        9. avatar David_TheMan says:


          What makes me think you are transposing your views on someone else? The fact that you are transposing your views and sensibilities on someone else. We know you think his choice is a poor one, you have a right to scrutinize to your hearts content, no one has said otherwise.

          All that said you really said nothing to respond to anything I said, you wanted to transpose your concept of what is handy and/or comfortable on someone else who has chosen to act different from you. I simply pointed that out.

          Walking your daughter to school isn’t a specific situation to discuss tactics, unless the tactics are which route he takes to walk his daughter to the bus stop and back home. You aren’t discussing that though, you are making some claim that he is acting tactically unsound in walking his daughter to the bus stop, something that makes no sense since he is able to accomplish that perfectly fine without getting lost, losing his life, or failing to accomplish the objective. So what are you talking about? I know you are voicing your opinion, I’m critiquing your opinion and the opinion of RF.

          Lamenting the likely outcome of potential illegal behavior by cops and putting the burden of cops actions on a law abiding citizen exercising his rights is blaming the victim, whether you want to admit that or not.

          Exercising your right is simply exercising your right, there is no responsibility that comes with it. There is a difference between violating someone elses rights and exercising your own before you go that route as well.

          The rape analogy is perfectly apt to what you are presenting. You are saying that the cops will be likely to shoot a legal gun owner if they hear about a DGU or a shooting, you then say that open carrying makes the person a target for that. You ignore that the law abiding citizen has no obligation to make life easy for a cop to do his job, and has legal protections to ensure that he can exercise his rights. If a cop shots him he is wrong and it is entirely on the cop. Just like a rapist is responsible for raping a person, you would never claim a woman shouldn’t have been dressed “too sexy” as to contributing to her rape. So why do you use that argument when it comes to the armed hired hands of the state?

        10. avatar William Burke says:

          😀 Tonight, I feel DAVID STRONG! Way to go, DTM.

        11. avatar William Burke says:

          Either this is not the same Jus Bill we’re accustomed to, or he’s been bought off by someone.

          Think about it.

        12. avatar Jus Bill says:

          David_TheMan, I just can’t stand it. You open carry a long arm in any suburb of any major city on either coast and you will encounter police. The encounter is both your right and their duty, because they do NOT know you or your intentions. Move threateningly toward them and you WILL be shot, and possibly killed. You were exercising your right and that is the result. Would being right make you any less dead?

          I’m reminded of an apocryphal story from my youth that illustrates this.

          A man was in the subway, and spits on the tracks. This is a crime, and a cop spots him. He writes him a ticket for two dollars. The man objects, “It’s my natural right to spit. I won’t pay the fine!” The cop tells him to tell the judge.

          He goes to see a lawyer. “What should I do?” he asks. The lawyer says “Pay the two dollars.” The man objects, “It’s my natural right to spit. I won’t pay the fine!” The lawyer tells him he’ll see him in court.

          On the appointed day they appear in front of the judge, who says “Spitting in the subway. Two dollar fine. Pay the clerk.” But the man objects, “It’s my natural right to spit. I won’t pay the fine!” “30 days in jail” says the judge, and the Bailiff hauls him off.

          A few days later the lawyer visits him. “What did I do wrong?” the man asks. “It’s my natural right to spit.” The lawyer replied “I agree it’s your natural right. But you should have paid the two dollars.”

          Moral of the story – exercising your rights in the wrong place and at the wrong time can have bad personal consequences later.

        13. avatar Paul G. says:

          Having your dog in the backyard when the wrong cop is chasing a perp through it, your dog will be shot dead, but the dog didn’t do anything wrong.

      3. avatar Ardent says:

        Perhaps you can’t and perhaps the guy in the video can’t but I can sure point shoot a target inside 30 feet by pointing the rifle and looking over the optic. For all we know this guy might be an expert in the technique.

        Furthermore, and as I’ve pointed out, a rifle in the hand is sure one hell of a deterrent. Who picks on a guy with a rifle, really?

        The speed of his deployment is never going to matter because no one is going to challenge a guy packing a rifle around.

    2. avatar Lord Wulfgen says:

      David, there are so many things wrong with what you are saying, I got on my computer just to reply to you.

      [1. Open carrying a long gun isn’t handy, guess you should tell the soldiers worldwide how unhandy carrying a long gun is. Oh that is right, you are conflating your personal opinion with a fact.

      Handy is subjective, if the man remembers to open carry and does it in a responsible way I don’t see how you can claim the act isn’t hand to him.]

      As someone who has carried a rifle for perhaps thousands of hours, I will tell you that it is not handy to have a rifle banging against you all day. Soldiers carry a rifle because they need to be prepared to engage targets at hundreds of meters. If you live in a neighborhood where you feel there is a realistic chance of engaging targets at hundreds of meters, then you should probably move out of a war zone. I don’t care what you say, carrying a rifle is not convenient, or handy, when strolling around Anytown, USA. Notice how cops leave them in the car until there is a pressing need?

      [2. Tactically sound? Are you serious. Again guess we should tell all the police in the US and around the world who are armed and openly carry that they aren’t doing it right. They need to put articles of clothing over their weapon, then if they need it they can do a tactically sound shirt sweep. SMH.

      Tactics are determined by the situation internet commando. You can’t objectively say anything is doing in open carrying is sound or unsound because their is no situation to apply his actions and critique. Stop spouting non-sense and thinking you are making a point. You arent.]

      We are discussing open carried rifles here, not handguns, therefore that is a facile analogy. “Stop spouting non-sense and thinking you are making a point.” That’s funny, that is what I think every time I read one of your posts, Mr. Anti-Internet-Commando.

      [3. How does open carrying a long gun make you a target?
      Oh police might shoot you, are you serious?
      Police shooting innocent people happens when people don’t even have guns, and most importantly from a logical stance that is on the police and the US justice system which encourages them to shoot first and ask questions later, not on a legally responsible gun owner and carrier.]

      Do you SERIOUSLY think that you have any reasonable chance of survival if you are brandishing a rifle when a bunch of cops roll up hot on a shooting in progress? I would give you low odds of survival. Is that wrong in the grander sense of things, as you pointed out? Yeah, probably, but that is not the point of this article. RF was pointing out valid reasons on why carrying a rifle in town is a bad idea, not arguing the ethics of police shootings. Your point is invalid.

      [Look I know you want hits, but you really should put out better formed articles than this. Garbage articles like this do this site a disservice, it makes the site seem like it is run by a bunch of Call of duty wannabe commandos.]

      “Call of duty wannabe commandos?” That’s funny, because that is exactly what I think of anyone who wants to carry a rifle around in the ‘burbs. Don’t like the articles? Don’t click on them. Or better yet, start a David The Man blog, and then you can put out well written, well “formed” articles that all the non internet commandos will love.

      1. Great response, that Java did the trick, I’d say.

      2. avatar David_TheMan says:

        Okay now we have the other guy.

        Okay Wulfgen, the key word is handy, not comfortable. On top of that, if you are telling me that aas a soldier you would rather have a concealed rifle or a concealed handgun rather than a rifle. Is that what you are telling me, that would be more handy for you in a combat zone?

        Answer that and we will get back to that line because I think you are trying to move the goalposts from handy to comfortable, even though again the concept of what is handy is subjective to the individual.

        Yes we are discussing open carried rifles. I find it funny in your response you never actually countered anything I said though, you attacked me, but that was it. This is typical of people who argue from emotion but not from logic. I think we now see what camp you are in with regard to open carry. Also the conept of open carry was posited as unsound to this I brought up soldiers walking around in combat with their rifles and police with holstered pistols, logically there is no difference if the point is that it being carried openly is the part that is unsound, as RF says.

        If a person uses a rifle defensively and then using their sling positions it in to be at the ready, how is that brandishing? You are presenting a false argument to try to give your critique weight and like RF and McCain you are failing, because there is no substance to your argument. If a man uses his gun defensively and the police are called its the police’s job to come on the scene and assess the situation, not start shooting at anyone they see with a gun. If the gun owner is peaceful and responds to lawful commands then how is it his fault if the police outside the scope of their power and authority and murder him because of their hoplophobia regarding non-cops with guns?

        Like McCain you seem to be emotionally invested into being anti-OC to the point where you present no rational arguments at all. I expected more from those on the pro-2nd amendment side.

        1. David, the problem is not that we are not presenting any rationale arguments, the problem is that the reasons we are presenting require a basic level of reasoning skills to understand that I fear you lack.


        2. avatar Lord Wulfgen says:

          David, I am on my out the door, so I don’t have time to reply right now. However, a proper reply will be given, I assure you of that.

        3. avatar David_TheMan says:

          No McCain, what you are presenting is your idea and opinion.
          Instead of saying you don’t like it though, you and RF want to act like there is a real reason for your stance outside of it offends your sensibilities. that is all.

          Most of your arguments have been deconstructed and refuted but like I said with you it is a emotional issue, not logic.

          Fact is the man is exercising his right and taking care of his daughter and there is nothing wrong with that. Better to have a gun and not need it (any gun) than need one and not have it. Also open carry and concealed carry is a distinction without a difference, all arguments for open carry boil down to cosmetics.

        4. avatar Lord Wulfgen says:

          [Answer that and we will get back to that line because I think you are trying to move the goalposts from handy to comfortable, even though again the concept of what is handy is subjective to the individual.]

          Um…no. That is a silly question, and you are setting up a straw man argument. My point all along has been that I think carrying a rifle is silly in that man’s situation. I never said a handgun would be handier than a rifle in all situations.

          [Yes we are discussing open carried rifles. I find it funny in your response you never actually countered anything I said though, you attacked me, but that was it.]

          I countered everything you said, paragraph, by paragraph. I honestly don’t believe that you thoroughly read my post, and that if you did, you did not comprehend it. So, this time, I will go by every few sentences. And as far as attacking you, I only repeated back what you were accusing RF of: you accused him of being an “internet commando”, you said “Stop spouting non-sense and thinking you are making a point. You arent.”, you called his article garbage, and then you said, “it makes the site seem like it is run by a bunch of Call of duty wannabe commandos.” So who started with the attacks?

          [This is typical of people who argue from emotion but not from logic. I think we now see what camp you are in with regard to open carry. ]

          This is your whole problem right here, you are confusing my expressed opinion about one man’s actions with my beliefs on his rights. I have never said, and never will say, that he shouldn’t have the right to carry his weapon as he pleases. I believe in the right to open carry. I also believe in my right, and anyone else’s, to express my opinion on his actions, especially in the comments section on a gun blog. Nowhere did I say he shouldn’t be allowed to do it, I just think it is a poor choice.

          [Also the conept of open carry was posited as unsound to this I brought up soldiers walking around in combat with their rifles and police with holstered pistols, logically there is no difference if the point is that it being carried openly is the part that is unsound, as RF says.]

          RF specifically said that he felt a holstered handgun would be a better choice, and he has never (in my memory) outright attacked all forms of open carry. Again with the straw man argument.

          I am not going to quote your last couple of paragraphs, because this is probably too long already. However, just because you don’t agree with me, does not mean that my argument has no substance. On the contrary, I have provided quite a bit of substance, whether or not you agree with my opinion. If you want to open carry a rifle, fine that is your choice. It is not mine.

          I also take exception with your repeated accusations that I am arguing simply from emotion. That is dismissive and rude, as you have no idea of my emotional state. We disagree, that is all.

        5. avatar David_TheMan says:


          Asking you a question isn’t presenting a strawman, its asking a question. I haven’t misstated your position I’m asking for clarification. I know what your point is, I disagree with you point and obviously the man does as well, which is why he carries a rifle and has been doing so for months.

          So this is just another example of you trying to lay down your opinion in defense of makign the argument that someone the man’s valuation of a rifle being handy is wrong. (Something I disagreed with this article about and seemed to cause you to respond to me to disagree with me)

          You didn’t counter anything, you expressed more of your opinion, but you didn’t actually address anything I said. Yes I accused McCain of being a internet commando because of statements he made, I did no such thing to you, so I really don’t understand the need for you to attack me, but again that is on you, and I have replied back to you and you still haven’t responded to any of my points with anything of substance. You took this whole paragraph to complain about what I posted to another member. Seems you really don’t want to discuss the meat and bones of what I presented.

          I haven’t confused your position at all. I haven’t said anything about your view of rights in this line of discussion. You are now pulling statements out of your ass wholly. I guess you use this to paint yourself as being attacked or what not, but everything I’ve said is simply factual. You haven’t countered anything I’ve said logically. You have complained about what I wrote to someone else, you tried to lie and say I presented a strawman of your argument when I asked you a question to clarify, and now you are going on about what you believe are rights, when in this paragraph you replied to I only said you argue from emotion and we know where you stand with regard to open carry, which from what you have written it is clear you are anti-OC.

          RF said and I quote
          “2. Open carrying a long gun in a city isn’t tactically sound”

          I responded directly to that contention. So no again that isn’t a strawman that is a direct critique on what RF wrote and I responded to that contention by pointing out that apparantly soldiers and cops Open carrying aren’t tactically sound. You then tried to say oh but it is different with a soldier and I responded that OCing period is simply not unsound tactically no matter how you cut it.

          Now it is sad that either you haven’t read the article you want to discuss or don’t know what strawmen arguments are but it makes no sense what you have written from a logical perspective. It is simply outright lies and ignorance of the article and the conversation strain. You shoudl pay more attention.

          You can take exception all you like. I’m just calling it as I see it. You haven’t taken the time to logically argue anything I’ve written. Over this thread a commentator named “Dave” atleast logically responded to what I wrote, even in disagreeing he actually understood and responded to what I wrote, not babble emotion and personal feelings as if they were relevant.

        6. avatar William Burke says:

          David, I’m with you. We can’t expect this to stop. It will probably get much worse. All we can do is express what’s right in our hearts, take the bumps and bruises, and die knowing we struggled for what we know is right.

      3. avatar William Burke says:

        I can’t make heads or tails of your post. Might I suggest a writing class at the community college?

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I see a guy who, for some reason, fears for his child’s safety, and carries the gun that he has. Maybe there are coyotes in the area, maybe rattlesnakes. Perhaps he’s not in the mood to spend $800 on a new gun we would all approve as “tactically sound” from our superior perches. Point is he feels he has a reason to carry, and he has a gun to carry. What’s the fuss? Did he say he’s making a statement? I thought he said he was protecting his child. And we want to pick a fight with him? If you think he’s “hurting the cause”, carry him a better gun and give it to him. OOops, not that important, right? Then STFU.

    4. avatar William Burke says:

      Paul is anti-gun talking points, not truth or reason. Nice goin’, DTM!

  5. Obviously Mr. Savage has mastered the art of quick scoping.

    I’m sure he has used it thousands of times playing Call of Duty.

    He’s GTG.

    And besides, as the reporter said: “You look intimidating!”

    But at least he is ready to grab a quick bite at Chipotle with the other Chipotle Ninjas.

    1. avatar Anon says:

      Yes, he clearly lacks your extensive tactical, combat expertise.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Said the anonymous coward.

  6. avatar Gunr says:

    Open carry a long gun anywhere in the city, Bad idea!

  7. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    I’m surprised the bus even stopped to let children off if this guy was standing there with a rifle. If the bus driver and children all the knew the guy, then maybe that’s ok, but for all outward appearances, I bet any passing police officer will about crap their pants if they saw this guy at a bus stop and a bus was rolling up.

    Second, if he’s that worried, he should drive his daughter to school. What exactly does he think will happen at the bus stop? If an attack is going to happen (I’m assuming the father thinks it’ll happen via another student) then it’s reasonable to assume it’s going to happen on the bus or at school. It stands to reason he should be by his daughter’s side 24/7 if he really thinks bus stops (and who knows what else) is that dangerous. Home schooling is an option, you know.

    But really, with all the school shootings being in the media, this guy thinks it’s a good idea to brandish a rifle at a bus stop, with children everywhere. Sigh.

    Sure, crazy people target soft targets. We know that. But there is a valid way to carry without scaring the sheep or alarming the police.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I don’t know what he’s afraid of, and neither do you. I don’t know if he has a car, or even a driver’s license, and neither do you. This sounds like writing a novel by committee, each person coming up with his own favorite plot twist.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Obviously, he lives within close walking distance of the school. Look no further.

  8. avatar Jeremy says:

    The reason open carry is bad is you become a high value target. Any where you go, the bad guys will see what you have on, and either avoid you, or set to take you down with out a chance to defend your self.
    Then your rifle is literally pried from your cold dead fingers.
    Pistols are less noticeable. If you are in an area where open carry is common, its not a problem. Down town anycity U.S.A. You become a sore thumb.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      What’s funny as that even well into the 1950s, it was not at all unusual to be carrying a long-gun down and through what is now Times Square. Yeah, sure, the times may change but our rights sure as hell don’t.

      1. avatar Jeremy says:

        As far as I can tell from reading the Constitution, any law that prevents a law abiding citizen from carrying a gun any time any where is unconstitutional.
        Practical is another story. A rifle draws attention. It makes you a target. I’d rather not get shot by a bad guy, or a bad guy in a uniform if I can help it.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          A rifle certainly draws attention (at least in some circles it does anyway), but it doesn’t make you a target by any means.

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:

        That was all before 9-11, the GWOT, indefinite detention, pervasive monitoring, and universal training of everyone to fear everything. Hell, I used to open carry my rifle on the IRT subway as a kid and nobody gave me a second look. Today the cops and three-letter agencies’agents would be all over me like a cheap suit if I tried that.

        Times are much different, bud.

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          So rights are relative?

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          So,,911, a false flag event to curtail our rights, should be invoked to destroy our rights?

          DAMN, you gave in for someone’s song.

        3. avatar Excedrine says:

          Sorry dude, but absolutely none of that even begins to diminish in any meaningful way the fact that our rights still haven’t changed, regardless of the march of bullshit laws passed by crooked politicians to be enforced by those cops that are on a power trip.

        4. avatar William Burke says:

          I’m concerned that the Pod People have taken Jus Bill’s soul!

  9. avatar Tom W. says:

    One big reason:

    To quote Dr. Venkman; (Bill Murray);

    “Your scaring the straights!”

    I’m all for OC, CC to each his/her own depending on that particular state’s law.
    But a rifle at a bus stop? Wee bit much unless the bus stop is in bear country Alaska. Methinks a pistol would be a better choice.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      I’m sure he appreciates your advice. Maybe you can tell him how to run his life next.

  10. avatar jimmyjames says:

    1. This sounds kinda toungue in cheek. 2. Bolt gun with 26″ bbl…not really practical but makes a statement. 3. When my paperwork comes back, an M4 SBR will be my EDC gun for my vehicle and my street if need be.

    1. avatar Jeremy says:

      Get an AR pistol instead. Less paperwork.

  11. avatar Skyler says:

    I don’t know why there is such an anti gun bias at this website. Your being afraid of a rifle is not a good enough reason t be against rifles.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Because so many anti-rights fanatics have emigrated to this site. They don’t take the Bill of Rights seriously, except for the First Amendment, and they’d scream bloody murder if you tried to infringe upon THEIR 1A rights.

      Read the Constitution. It means what the hell it says.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Skyler is another MDA sock puppet. It’s been a while, Bubba. How’s Mikey doing? Still sitting in short chairs?

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Seriously? Of all the possibilities, you want to whack THIS post? WHAT THE HELL?

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    From what I can gather, Muskegon Heights is not a nice place to live … residents experience plenty of violent and property crimes. A safety conscious person would not live in such an environment unless they cannot afford to move anywhere else. That means the man probably cannot afford a handgun, either.

    If all you have is a rifle and you cannot afford a handgun, you use what you have.

    As for comments about the “necessity, need, or propriety” of taking his rifle to the bus stop, consider this. In the last year a father who accompanies his to daughter to/from the bus stop used his concealed handgun to thwart teens who targeted him for the knockout game while waiting for his daughter’s bus. That event occurred within 90 miles of where this father lives.

    1. avatar Mike says:

      uncommon_sense you are probably 100% right. I live about 20 miles from Muskegon Heights and it is like a miniature version of Detroit in some places. I give the guy credit for taking it upon himself to do something about the safety of his daughter.

  13. avatar Sean N says:

    I have never in my life needed to carry an AR15 to get a breakfast burrito.

    Being against OC of rifles for stupid reasons, is not being anti-gun. I found everything Robert said to be spot on. I’m not going to tell somebody that they cannot OC a rifle, but I am more than happy to tell them how stupid they are being. I will explain to them that they are not helping ANYTHING, and are in fact helping the anti-gunners make their point.

    You don’t need to exercise your rights physically or literally. They are not getting fat.
    You are scaring people. Wearing an MP5 clone to Denny’s isn’t normal. It never will be.
    You can defend yourself equally well with a concealable gun.

    You have a right to bear arms. But you don’t have to be a tool.

    1. avatar RJ says:

      You sound just like the antis, who will proclaim that they’ve never needed to carry a gun at all to go anywhere.

      1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

        No… his point is this is not Israel or Iraq. There are no imminent threats that justify the need to brandish a rifle openly. And by brandish I mean putting your finger near the trigger and holding it in front of you.

        If this guy had the rifle slung on his shoulder, that is a more acceptable way to carry considering he is not in imminent danger and it is less alarming than carrying the former way.

        I’m going to keep repeating this until it sinks in: The layman cannot magically know you are a good guy with a gun (visible or not). For all they know, you could be a bad guy with a gun.

        Seeing someone with a rifle at a bus stop could be a father waiting on his daughter, or a person about to be the next “spree killer”. From the outside, they would appear the same.

        However, being a good guy with a gun, I know how NOT to scare the sheep and I choose that option, for the same reason I don’t wave around my firearm in a mall for no reason. I don’t want the attention nor do I want to cause alarm. It’s plain stupid to do so.

        If this person only has a rifle as a means to self-defense and feels it necessary for his daughter, there are steps he can take not to alarm anyone else. Like slinging that rifle over his shoulder and dressing normally (ie. not in all black for pete’s sake) or carrying it in a rifle bag (again, not black). Hell, I’m sure he could even find a bag that allows “quick access” if he feels that is a must. Google is your friend. There are lots of “covert” CC methods available specifically for this purpose.

        If you’re going to OC, at least do it smart. Don’t dress in all black or wear tacticool crap please. That’s just embarrassing and doesn’t even fit the environment you’re in (suburbia).

        1. avatar Sean N says:

          So very much THIS.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          “There are no imminent threats that justify the need to brandish a rifle openly.”

          Until there is. No one knows when or where violent criminals are going to strike. If the victim knew beforehand, the victim would go some place else.

        3. avatar Sean N says:

          tell me…

          Do you carry a fire extinguisher everywhere?
          How about antivenin?
          How about a simple epipen?

          Odds are more likely that you will need one of those specific use items, more than a rifle.
          Hell, I have used all three of those things more often in one month, than I have needed to carry a rifle to taco bell in my entire life.

          So, yeah.. I’m all for carry… but let your carry choice make some damn sense.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Exact same arguments apply to a pistol, concealed or not. So, shall we all agree to simply outlaw guns altogether? Or shall we get serious?

        5. avatar Sean N says:


          I’ve had people crawling my ass for having this opinion for ages. But it’s real simple.

          When you CAN concealed carry, it makes more sense to do so. Because a concealed pistol does not frighten the flock. But people jump all over me because I dared say that they should do something other than what they want to do.

          Do I feel you should be able to OC an AR in town? Sure. If you have a reason to, go right ahead. Going to the range? Going hunting? Riots nearby and you own a business, sure thing.

          If your reason is “To normalize it for the sheeple” or some such nonsense, you need to rethink your motive. Because you are NOT normalizing it. You are essentially carrying the one weapon most likely to scare antigunners, or even UNBIASED INNOCENTS who normally wouldn’t care either way.

          In a case like the original post, my first thought is “Why doesn’t he call the police?” If there is a real reason for him to carry a gun to the bus stop, why has the cause of the problem not been addressed?

          For me, carrying a pistol is more than enough, “just in case”.

        6. avatar uncommon_sense says:


          People in the U.S. reported over 1 million violent crimes to law enforcement agencies in 2012. And people who do not trust law enforcement agencies experienced countless additional violent crimes that were not reported. When snakebites are that common and a single antivenin works for all bites, I will carry antivenin with me. And if two million people spontaneously combusted every year, I would seriously consider carrying around a fire extinguisher as well.

          But the probability of an event doesn’t matter. That father is a free man. He can carry around whatever he damn well pleases. What if he carried a sign to the bus stop every day … a sign that said, “(racial slur of choice) are useless!” Would that sign be offensive to many people? Sure. Would many people say he has no sense carrying such a sign? Sure. Would that increase the probability of someone violently attacking him? Sure. NEVERTHELESS, IT IS THAT FATHER’S RIGHT TO CARRY SUCH A SIGN. And it is that father’s right to carry a firearm.

        7. avatar Pseudo says:

          Why is this repeatedly getting lost? Sure it’s his right. They’re saying it’s a bad idea. That he shouldn’t do it, not that he should be legally prohibited from doing it. This doesn’t have anything to do with his rights. Dude walks around with a sign with racial slurs? I’m going to judge him, not call for his arrest. Same thing here.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      “Being against OC of rifles for stupid reasons, is not being anti-gun”

      The hell it doesn’t.

  14. avatar Excedrine says:

    The only reason open carry of anything is perceived as bad, as all arguments against open carry are inextricably mired in deliberately fabricated perceptions that were practically invented and protected by the so-called lamestream “news” media, is because people are born and bred to think it is. All this without a single, solitary shred of evidence to hold it up besides the stock-standard “because it just is” mantra.

    That is literally all there is to it.

    And don’t get me started on the wholly indefensible the “it’ll make you an HVT” bullshit, because that is precisely the only thing that it is: unsupported and unsupportable bullshit. That is, unless someone somewhere can point to any evidence at all of such a thing happening regularly. Sure, there will be a precious handful of purely anecdotal occurrences to be certain, but arguments built solely on anecdote are exactly what the anti’s use against us.

    So, is anyone going to help us out here?


    Yeah, I didn’t think so, either — and that’s precisely because it just doesn’t happen on the regular.

    About the only thing right in this entire article is that it’s just not as convenient as carrying a handgun, which should go without saying. As for me, personally, that is the sole reason why I don’t openly carry a long-gun.

    It should not and does not matter which tool we pick for the job of providing our own personal security (which is solely our responsibility remember). All that matters is that we damned-well should have them and should definitely damned-well be able to carry them without question nor concern. Period.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      Only just as much as you are a poster child for the anti-rights movement by making arguments based entirely on “need” and “propriety”, just like the they always do, immediately rendering everything you say based on such arguments totally irrelevant.

      Thanks for playing.

      Oh, and one more thing: if protecting our rights — which does include the open-carry of long-guns thank-you-very-much — makes me any kind of fanatic (which it doesn’t by the way), then I don’t want to be anything else.

      That’s as far as this conversation is going to go. Have a nice day. 😉

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        I think the post above this one (and this post as well) can be deleted, as the post it is in reply to no longer exists. Yep.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        What he said.

      3. avatar William Burke says:

        Oh yeah! Nicely played.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      That covers it for me. Living in Texas, open carry of handguns is illegal. If I saw someone doing it, and even noticed, I would not care a whit, and certainly would not feel a need to call anyone on the subject.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        And that’s exactly how it very damned-well should be.

        It’s exactly nobody’s business, not on any level nor in any way whatsoever, if I choose to carry a long-gun where it is legal (which should be everywhere anyway). Every single complaint about what this man is doing is based strictly on “needs”, “practicality”, or “propriety”, and as such are irrelevant and moot. Why? They cannot be backed by substance because they are not substantive arguments to begin with. They have no legs to stand on nor any ground under them even if they did.

        We, The People in these United States are a nation of riflemen.

        Not pistoleros.

        Not shotgunners.


        …Though it wouldn’t hurt to also be a pistolero or shotgunner to boot.

        Even so, that doesn’t even begin to change the fact that our natural, fundamental, individual, civil, and Constitutionally-protected and affirmed right to keep and bear arms — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments based in social utility — includes all of the above: rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

        1. avatar Pseudo says:

          This self-righteous “we the people” crap is hilarious, especially when it’s followed by claiming things aren’t subject to the will of the people. Not subject to the democratic process? You aren’t living in the country you think you are. The constitution was designed to be mutable. The second amendment is subject to all of the other rules of the constitution, including being subject to further amendment and interpretation by the supreme court. Our literal-interpretation 2nd amendment rights are infringed all around the US by state and federal statute and it isn’t unconstitutional. Pick and choose which parts of the constitution you think are sacrosanct all you want. It doesn’t give you any legal or logical legs to stand on. If 45 states wanted to amend the constitution to remove the 2nd amendment entirely, it would be completely within the legal framework of the constitution and we’d all be SOL. Grow up.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          What’s so supposedly “self-righteous” about belonging to a nation of citizens with a rich history and long-standing tradition of arm and marksmanship? Oh wait. There isn’t. And uh, no, our rights aren’t subject to the will of the people, either. You quite obviously don’t even live out here in the real world with the rest of us, much less the same country. On top of that, even if the Second Amendment were repealed (good luck with that by the way), we would still absolutely have the right to keep and bear arms under the 9th and 10th Amendments, too. When the government can actually prove that is has a compelling interest in public safety on which it predicates its blatantly obvious overreach into our civil rights (and not just the right to keep and bear arms mind you), when it has in fact held itself above any responsibility for the same under all circumstances ironically enough, then — and only then — could you or anybody else even begin to say that such asinine and ass-backwards infringements are anything but Unconstitutional. Oh, and totally unlike you, I don’t make a habit of “picking and choosing” what parts of the Constitution I do and do not like. In fact, unless and until you can actually point out where I did, which you can’t because it never happened, you can stow any such remarks where the Sun doesn’t shine because that’s precisely the only place they’ll ever belong. Thanks in advance.

          You grow up, kiddo.

    3. avatar Ardent says:

      The high value target argument is a little silly. I’m sure there are some criminals out there who are dumb/brave/crazy enough to intentionally get into a fight with a guy packing a rifle but intuition and the available evidence suggest that the vast majority would prefer an unarmed victim. There is an argument that CCW makes everyone safer because the BGs don’t know who might be packing. If there is any validity in this, then being the guy the BGs know very well is armed should be a powerful deterrent (and it is).

  15. avatar Paul53 says:

    I have 2 daughters. I would do anything to protect them. If that meant buying a long gun to escort them it’s a small price to pay. Familiarity: if everybody open carried, then the unarmed person would stick out.
    All that said, I essentially agree with the points RF is trying to make. Sometimes there’s a better way, sometimes you make do with what you’ve got.

    1. avatar Sean N says:

      I have three kids.
      If I needed a rifle to protect them at the playground, I would more to a better neighborhood.

      There is a great deal more to protecting and raising your kids safe than carrying a gun everywhere.

      1. avatar Anon says:

        There was just a thread here a couple weeks ago, where people were stating that it is the attitude of Shannon Watts, et al, that people in bad neighborhoods should “just move”.

        You don’t know that man, or his business: maybe they used to live in a better neighborhood and he lost his job, maybe their current neighborhood used to be better, recently became worse, and he can’t afford to move.

        1. avatar Sean N says:

          You’re going to apply that single man’s situation to every single person who would carry a gun?

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sean, you are making assumptions unsupported by any facts, making up your own story as you go along. There are a whole lot of people today living from hand to mouth or worse, I’m pretty sure if this guy could afford to move to a gated community with armed guards, he would do so. I’m also pretty sure if he did not have that rifle he would escort his child to the bus carrying a kitchen knife. What I’m not sure of at all is what makes you think you know how much money he has, to spend as you tell him?

        3. avatar Sean N says:

          Well, here’s the thing…

          I’m not talking about just this one guy.
          You folks think I’m singling him out. I’m not.

          But you’re right. I don’t know this one specific guy or his finances.
          Neither do you.

        4. avatar NL says:

          Bullshit. It’s the criminals’ responsibility to stop committing crime, and the right of good people to protect their homes. If the monkeys can’t handle armed homeowners, they should leave.

      2. avatar Anon says:

        @Sean N

        Not at all; I thought that was clear in what I wrote.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      “if everybody open carried, then the unarmed person would stick out.”

      [Applause]. And the long-gun open carriers are doing their best to make it the norm, as it should be.

      And when you attack long gun carriers, you are saying you don’t believe the Second Amendment says what it means.

  16. avatar Bud says:

    In my perfect world, open carry would be the rule of the day.

    I am a strong proponent of concealed carry because I feel it is the very fastest way to reduce crime because the potential of an armed victim would be a deterrence.
    But, along the same line, I believe open carry if practiced by almost everyone would be a way to bring crime to a sudden screeching halt.
    Imagine if you will, a BG entering a convenient store and sticking a gun in the face of the clerk. The clerk responds by pulling his own gun as does every other customer in the store and suddenly the BG is surrounded by firearms pointed at him.

    Lee Ermay, the “Gunny”, made a similar commercial for Glock but it involved all cops in a diner.

    Why should that ability be restricted to just cops?

    Flipping a shouldered firearm into a firing position is pretty easy once you learn how and then practice the movement.

    Is it wrong for this guy to walk his little girl to school every day and carry what he thinks he needs to protect her?

    The real bottom line answer to the question is, “has anyone attempted to harm her”? If the answer is no them its pretty hard to argue with his decision.

    On the flip side, how many little girls and boys have been harmed on their way to and from school and if there are any, was anyone there to protect them?

    I understand and respect the argument against open carry.

    But, it is real hard to argue with the fact that the practice remains a deterrent and if the vast majority of people did it, crime stats would plummet.

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      You’re certainly onto something. It’s hard to imagine face to face crimes; muggings, carjackings, robberies and the like continuing to happen if everyone were always armed. It seems to me that there are only a couple of outcomes possible: Most people would immediately stop committing these sorts of crimes because the risk just became way too high, those who were slow on the uptake wouldn’t survive more than a couple of attempts and the only people being successful at these crimes would either be murder first rob second types or organized gangs who overwhelmed victims with superior firepower.
      Most criminals would like to avoid a murder rap so I doubt that many would adopt the shoot first plan and the latter requires having a group of like minded individuals who are all willing to risk both a gunfight and a lengthy prison stay (or an execution) for a share of the proceeds of the crime, which can’t come together very often in the real world.

      As for open carry, I usually don’t but yesterday was a rare exception. It was hot here in the valley and I wanted to go into a small rural carry out for a cold drink and didn’t feel like throwing my cover up on over my gun so I just walk in OCing. Just inside a boy of about 10 asked me what I was packing and I told him (it was a 1911). His dad remarked what a nice gun it was and how he’d been thinking of getting one. The clerk said that she thought she should have a bigger gun than the .38 she was carrying at least while she was at work.

      The trick here is that I was in an old country store deep in the middle of a guntopia. OC or CC are both fine, but it helps to know your ‘audience’.

      Also, I thought it might warm some hearts to know that there are still places in America where carrying a gun is considered prudent and little more.

  17. avatar cmeat says:

    1. handy shmandy. i’m walkin’ to the corner bus stop. hell, why not grab a different color every day? “honey does this folding stock make my ass look big?”
    2. outside? on the street? rather a shotgun, but some long guns are less lengthier than others. i note the disparaging comments recently concerning lever guns, but you could do worse than fetching the mail with a 16″bbl in .44mag. good with a rifle? little to worry about except…
    3. bummer of a birth mark, hal. if there is a threat, i don’t want to be their object of affection. discretion here is essential. give yourself critical moments to potentially identify an issue while remaining uninjured. i’m not becoming a lead magnet for anything with my name on it. i’m too concerned with stuff addressed ‘to whom it may concern’.
    so there. whatevers handy is handy, i’m pretty sure that rifles are indeed tactical, and as marisa tomei might say, “oh, you blend.”

  18. avatar dwb says:

    Tactically unsound? sure.

    Is that a 22LR? looks like it to me based on the magazine. Maybe even a bolt action, I could not get a good look.

    Scope? totally useless at self defense distances.

    In short, a completely impractical gun for self defense.

    Are any of these reasons valid for dismissing this guy? Absolutely not. First, he is exercising his natural, constitutional right to self defense to protect his daughter. Maybe he just cannot afford a more tactically appropriate weapon. Why spend the money on another gun and a permit, the one he has appears to be having the right effect. Who are we to judge.

    I am generally a critic of the Texas OC ,strike.douchebags activists who really are protesting, not protecting themselves.

    This guy on the other hand has the right attitude. More power to him. He even appears to be offending all the right people, the convicted felons in the neighborhood.

    And, the police are on his side I might add.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “He even appears to be offending all the right people, the convicted felons in the neighborhood.”

      That sir, is the best comment on the Intertubez today! I raise my drink to you.

  19. avatar Anon says:

    @His Rotundity, Paul T McCain

    Yes, you are the paragon of how someone should act in regard to Memorial Day: I bet you’re solemnly stuffing your fat face with hot dogs as we speak.

    As for your allusion to stained body parts, don’t bring your church activities here. Maybe you should go attempt to flail around on top of your wife for 12 seconds, if she can bear the weight.

    You are a self-styled know-it-all and are ill-equipped to back up that role.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, gee, don’t hold back, tell us what you REALLY think!

    2. avatar William Burke says:


  20. avatar maynard biggs says:

    All three of RF’s points may be valid, but…

    What financial, societal or legal constraints are on the man? His choice may be poor, that may be all he has to work with. Alas, it is more than what you can get away with in California.

    1. avatar dwb says:

      I’d bet that is a Savage model 64, for around $200. A lot more wallet friendly than a S&W 686, and a lot better than any .22LR pistol. I personally would ditch the scope, but it’ll be hard to miss with that, scope or not.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      It doesn’t matter what his personal circumstances are. He is expressing his rights, which are immutable and inalienable.

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    Handiness and tactics aside, I can’t think of anything more, uh, persuasive than a shotgun.

    1. avatar Anon says:

      I can: a picture of Paul T McCain!

    2. avatar dwb says:

      Is that a shotgun? I happen to have a Savage 220 shottie (only the Savage 220 and 212 shotguns have magazines) in the vid, the magazine looks the wrong size – too long and not wide enough.

      I can’t tell, but it looks more like a Savage model 64 or Mark I/II in .22lr to me. I did not get a good view of the action to tell, but I’d bet on a model 64.

      The woman in the video says shotgun, people are assuming she is correct. I don’t think he’ll disabuse people of that.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      … if you have one!

  22. avatar gloomhound says:

    If you wish to open carry a holstered pistol then do so (where legal) as a gentleman ought, but carrying a long arm is just rude boorish behavior. Walking around carrying a rifle or shotgun makes it seem you are looking for trouble.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Who cares what other people think? Well, maybe you do, but I sure as hell do not. All that matters is that he is expressing his rights. PERIOD. Go ahead, faint. It might be good for you.

      Women get the vapors, too.

  23. avatar R Czech says:

    Titling fail. You title it like a general set of guidelines, but they are actually specific to what this one dude is doing.

    Yeah, a bolt-action with a scope is gonna have problems up close. But the problem here is not the choice of weapons – otherwise you’d say “get an AR with a red dot next time.” If I ran around everywhere with my AR pistol slung, I’m capable of hitting targets from 0-300 yards, surprisingly fast. Tactically speaking, it’s ideal – fairly compact, not as heavy as a full-sized model, really fast to engage with – much faster and more accurate than any handgun from a holster.

    Are police more likely to shoot you if you have a rifle? Probably so. Not the LAPD of course, they’ll find a couple of Korean ladies to shoot up instead (unless you’re asian, then they’ll probably shoot up a bunch of Swedes), and the NYPD will just shoot around you, killing/maiming everyone else in the vicinity in their typical display of Stormtrooper Marksmanship. Then again, when you have a damn rifle strapped to your chest, who is gonna want to start causing you trouble to begin with? Major deterrence factor there.

    The real problem with OC’ing long guns is that it’s pissing people off, scaring people, and it’s likely contributing to coffers of the Brady Bunch. They’ll send a couple of pictures of dudes OC’ing rifles in public to soccer moms, and say THIS is why we need gun control. They’ll rake in the money, and possibly get stuff banned.

    1. avatar Taylor TX says:

      These blast points are too accurate for sand people, only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise 🙂

  24. avatar Taylor TX says:

    Talk about chafing!

    Get a better sling, Blue force gear or VTAC padded slings are great, the BDS tactical padded sling isnt bad either.

  25. avatar CV76 says:

    Muskegon Heights. Anyone here know a thing about that area? I do and because of that I also support his carry situation. First, anything with the name “Heights” in it has nothing to do with ‘Moving On Up’. Second, when you have an old elementary school in the area that’s been used as an execution spot for rampant thuggery, you need to reassess what is the ‘norm’.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      According to local crime stats; it has five times the national average for the violent crime rate. I’d say he would have a better reason than most people here to OC a rifle.

  26. avatar M J Johnson says:

    The man wants to protect his daughter in a not-so-safe part of town. He decides the best way to do that is to walk his daughter to, and from, the school bus stop every day. More power to him, I say.

    1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

      When the largest and loudest voice of outrage aimed at this loving father escorting his daughter comes from some big bad mama jama who is herself a convicted felon and would be a prohibited possessor, I consider that a badge of honor. Carry on, I say. Take care of your family.

      1. Sure, while we are at it, let’s toss in some good old fashioned racism..that’s helpful.

        1. avatar JeffR says:

          Hold on, now. Where was the racism in that comment? He called someone fat. Period. Sorry that hurts.

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          It’s fatheadism, Paul.

        3. avatar William Burke says:

          I’m sick of your Alinsky BS about “racism”, McCain. As most of us learned in elementary school, “he who smelt it, DEALT IT.”

  27. avatar tdiinva says:

    “Better to open carry a handgun. If you want deterrence, it’s gotta be a Smith & Wesson 686 in a proper holster. It’s eye candy for the kids! It’s nostalgia for the oldies! It’s death-on-a-stick for the bad guys! ”

    I can’t disagree with this sentiment but a 1911 ain’t chopped liver!

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      If you want to OC a pistol for pure deterrence why not go all out? I suggest a .44 or .50 Desert Eagle, a Colt Anaconda in .44mag or .45Colt, A .460S&W or a .500, A Super Redhawk in .454 or .44mag, perhaps even a .475 Wildey Magnum if you want to get all Charles Bronson on some one or the venerable S&W Mod 29 if you want to pull a Dirty Harry.

      If the point was simply to project deterrence, what would you OC in a pistol?

  28. avatar MudPuppy says:

    Sling rifle on left side muzzle down forearm grasped with left hand. Extend left arm out whilst rotating the hand 180 degrees freeing sling from shoulder and bringing rifle in line with eyes, simultaneously bring right hand up to engage stock and trigger. Rotate/disengage safety. Rifle is in action. Not hard.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I’ll see your tactic and raise you:

      Rifle slung diagonally across back, strap diagonally across chest, strap over right shoulder (for right handed shooters), barrel pointing up. When needed, simply rotate the sling and rifle around your body and bring the butt stock to rest on your right shoulder with your left hand supporting the fore end grip and your right hand moving to the grip/trigger area. This can happen in one fluid motion that is every bit as fast as drawing an openly carried handgun on your hip.

      1. avatar MudPuppy says:

        Sounds workable. Practice is all it takes. Folks equate slung arms as somehow not easily brought into action.

  29. avatar JeffR says:

    I love the police interaction with the convicted felon/neighbor in the video. That made my day.

  30. avatar Richard says:

    Another point not made by this article… open carrying a rifle (or anything, really) in a city brings a high risk of open carrying right through a gun-free school zone.

    I live downtown in a small town (abt 2500) and open carry is legal in my state. However, my house is in a Venn-diagram convergence zone of two schools (middle school and high school). There’s a park nearby and the meth-heads all live in the woods behind the park. Do I carry when we go to the park? No, thanks to the GFSZA. I’m thinking some bear spray might be a good idea though.

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      Michigan doesn’t recognize the 1000 ft provision of the gun-free school zone act.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I don’t think anyone does, it makes it impossible to drive through the city legally. Even for a judge. Enforcement is not gonna happen. Unless you piss off a cop, of course. And even then, the DA won’t prosecute.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Point! Set!

  31. avatar dwb says:

    So after reading though the comments, I think most people have it all wrong here. First, I think the gun is a Savage model 64 in .22LR, retail for under $200 (including scope), not a shotgun.

    If you are on a budget, I think this is a fine choice for protection. Are the better ones? Keep in mind: for permits, time wasted and fees raise the cost. For handguns, holsters raise the cost. A S&W 686 (or a Taurus tracker for $300 less in .357) would both be fine choices, but I am guessing out of this guys price range.

    Do us all a real favor here, what would be the best personal protection firearm for under $200 (all inclusive of fees and holster)?

    I am thinking though that this rifle is a pretty smart choice. I’d take a .22lr rifle over a .22lr pistol any day. It’d be pretty close between a shotgun and a .22, but in an urban environment a .22 doubles for light pest (rat) control. Would I pick a high-point 380 pocket pistol over this? well, there is the holster, and the 380 is only good for protection, not hunting.

    If you are budget constrained, this is really not a bad choice at all IMO.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I agree. And it’s not the wrong kind of “scary” for the neighbors if you live in a sketchy part of town.

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      These days I’m not so sure but back in the early 90’s I sure had the answer; SKS. I picked up my first one new for $99 with sling, oil bottle and cleaning kit included. At the time 20rnds was going for about $4. For $100 that’s a lot of gun.

  32. avatar former water walker says:

    Do any of you realize how CRAZY some of you sound to the anti’s? I wouldn’t carry a rifle on the street but support this guy’s right to do it. My southern Cook County,Illinois neighborhood is experiencing an uptike in crime. Yesterday a MURDER at the gas station less than a mile away. I know I can’t afford to move yet. The bottom line to me is don’t be dick or a target in public. We’re all considered guilty by the left wing gun grabbers.

  33. avatar 0351 says:

    Well… I’m thinking that the flame war that TTAG just devolved into may have something to do with holiday “refreshments”… Maybe tone it down a bit folks?

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      Yes, some of the comments on this post bring to mind phrases like ‘unhinged’ and ‘off the rails’.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Anything which gets these media twits in such a snit cannot be all bad.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Indeed! Between this and the Santa Barbara murders and the Black Bike Week shootings their heads will explode in 3… 2…

  34. avatar EP says:

    And here we go again criticizing someone for pushing the envelope back in the right direction, but tomorrow we’ll gleefully sun ourselves on the ground his lese majesty gained.

  35. avatar DV says:

    Screw it. Carry around a mortar

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:


      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Talk about impractical! “Say there, creepy criminal! Would you mind going about 120 yards in that direction? Thanks.”

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      I travel exclusively in a three man group. . . I have to since I need the other two guys to carry the base plate and a case of ammo while I pack the tube.

  36. avatar Accur81 says:

    I agree with RF on all points. Police respond to gunfire, see a guy with a rifle, and are immediately inclined to think “bad guy.” Some people just don’t accept that reality. No the police aren’t perfect. Many times they need more training. I shoot and train more than most cops. Cops certainly make mistakes. TTAG has multiple stories of the wrong guy being shot by police.

    A concealed pistol can easily be concealed again. Not so with an AR or 18″ shotgun. Much less so with a 22-26″ barreled deer rifle. Therefore, rifle open carry is not tactically sound when police respond hot to the scene after doing 130 through traffic on the freeway or 70 mph through city streets. The adrenaline is going to be pounding.

    Ever been to a shooting in the city? Anyone? I have. It’s fvcking chaotic as hell. People running, confused, and bleeding. Some dying. Panicked witnesses all over. Some could easily blame the guy with the AR even if he’s the good guy. Police with their guns out and a murky description, looking for the killer. They might have hardly heard the radio traffic over the roar of their engines and the wail of their sirens. Want to be in the middle of that, Mr. “I need my AR at Walmart” guy? That’s asinine. Best of luck.

    1. avatar Lord Wulfgen says:

      Well said.


    2. avatar ThomasR says:

      Accur81; you know nothing about this man situation; you are simply projecting your immediate security needs on this mans situation; He is living in an area that has five times the violent crime rate on a national average. He might have had a direct threat by some gang banger in the area; maybe his daughter had been verbally or physically attacked. There was no back ground as to why he made this decision.

      Any projection is simply a wild shot in the dark and makes you and others on this site that are making definitive statements as to whether he has made a rational or reasonable choice look like, what can I say? You look like crazy people.

      1. Now that’s some really well done ad hominem argument there, ThomasR.


  37. avatar William Burke says:

    Nice try, no cigar. Hear my credo: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It means exactly what it says. My rights are not for sale, and they sure as HELL aren’t up for barter.

    Would I do it myself? I don’t think so, but I stand behind this man and his INALIENABLE rights.

    It means exactly what it says, and nothing else.

    1. avatar Lord Wulfgen says:

      Jeez, you and David sure are thick about this. Show me one post here that says he should not have the right? Those critiquing his actions are just expressing their opinion, as you did, that carrying a rifle may not be the best choice. Who said he shouldn’t have the right?

      1. Yup, some of these fanatical OC guys around here are dumber than a bag of hammers when it comes to making even an effort actually to understand and follow the conversation.

  38. avatar Dave s says:

    The purpose of the sidearm is fight your way back to your longarm, which you Should Not Have Laid Down.

    Lots of film of our troops walking down city streets with M4 so the other objections go down the tube.

    The city is a non-apocalyptic urban environment only until that black BMW slowly turns down your street

    As a Dad of two girls, can relate to Dad’s motivation

  39. avatar Dev says:

    OK, so it seems we mostly agree that this guy is carrying a gun to protect his daughter, and it seems most people disagree with him carrying a rifle. Especially since they are bashing the particular rifle. People have even surmised that just maybe this guy can’t afford a hand gun. So why don’t we all just chip in a dollar or two and get this guy money to buy a better EDC gun? Or just give him the Sig.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Because most of us are not busybodies.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        Aren’t we? I mean we regular posters aren’t all that much different from an old lady coffee klatch gossiping about whatever it is they do. I’m willing to admit it, I enjoy the back and forth.

  40. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Guys and gals, here’s the deal:

    There isn’t enough information in the article to know why the person is doing what he’s doing. Maybe he saw a crime committed at that very bus stop recently and that’s why he feels there is an element of danger or real imminent threat to his daughter’s safety in that area. Or maybe there’s a gang element nearby or some threat that was noticed that is still around. We don’t know.

    However, responding to an imminent threat is the only reason I can think of for having a rifle at the ready when you leave the door of your house. If you live in that crappy of a neighborhood, well then it does seem reasonable to OC a rifle at the ready. However, if that’s the case, it would be my recommendation to get an AR. And it would probably be a good idea to inform both the school and the local police and let them know what you look like and what you’re doing so they know you are one of the good guys.

    Otherwise, you dressing up “tactically” and OCing at the ready are just putting yourself at risk of looking like the bad guy — unless you are wise enough to dress in attire that lessens the overt-factor and carrying in a way that doesn’t arouse more attention than necessary.

    Cops and the military wear uniforms with in big bold letters (ie. POLICE) for this very reason — to let the layperson know they are the good guys whenever they go about their business in public.

    Here’s an easy analogy. I bet the police would get a much different reception if they didn’t have uniforms, didn’t have to show their badges, and drove unmarked cars but still went about their police duties. You wouldn’t even know they were the police and it would make it just a mess of misunderstandings and it would make it that much more difficult for the police to do their jobs.

    I bet a lot of misunderstandings would happen without overt identifiers. That is the boat armed citizens are in. We don’t have uniforms or nifty badges to flash to let everyone know at a glance that we’re good guys. So why put yourself out there to be misconstrued as a potential bad guy? I can’t think of a compelling reason that doesn’t defeat their initial goal.

    There’s a reason a lot of security are plain clothed and not in uniform and carrying ARs also, it serves the purpose of not being overt and not making people nervous.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Yes, I like it, but WHO in this thread ever talked about the guy dressing “tacticool”?
      Obviously, the guy did not. And SF WHAT if he did? Did he infringe open YOUR rights in any way whatsoever?

      If not, go follow Miley Cyrus on Facebook.

      1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

        I wrote my reply based on the photo (I missed the video link), so I covered all the bases.

        After watching the video, his reason for OC was valid, he lives in a crappy neighborhood. And he followed the same advice I outlined in my reply about informing the local PD. Good for him.

        As far as your facebook preferences, I’d keep those to yourself.

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      My daily work attire is a suit and tie and I could relate many incidents where being so dressed made the difference in a situation. At the very least, even with my coat off, exposing my pistol and mag carrier no one seems at all bothered. I suspect they assume I’m a detective or something with the police. How one is dressed does make a difference.

  41. avatar Ardent says:

    Holy crap the crazies are out in full force on this one! Is there a full moon tonight?

    I quit reading halfway through, not because it’s a waste of time (it is) but because I had to suppress the urge to cuss at the monitor (stupid makes me angry).

    A couple of points:

    The man has a freaking rifle, in what world that makes him a more obvious target for crime I don’t know. I’d go with ‘criminals seldom attack obviously armed people’ and I’d be spot on, because it’s so rare it’s statistically insignificant.

    He has every right to pack a rifle is he wants to, it might not be the most tactically sound decision ever made, but it’s his to decide whether you like it or not.

    Lets put it like this, you were thinking about raising hell but you just noticed that the guy on the corner has a rifle. Do you A) attack him, secure in the knowledge that he can’t bring his rifle into play fast enough? B) find someplace else to cause trouble or C) berate him over his poor tactical prowess and explain all the harm he’s supposedly causing to the RKBA?

    If you answered A you’re a fool and not long of this world, if you answered B you’re like 99.99% of criminals and if you answered C you’re just an asshole.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      No, new moon is Wednesday!

  42. avatar William Burke says:


  43. avatar Don says:

    He ought to get a lever action carbine.

  44. avatar UnapologeticallyAmerican says:

    Open Carry… loaded topic.
    I choose not to open carry because I hate attention. I don’t want the bad guys to know I have one until it is to late. I don’t want confrontations with cops or moms. I am not in the business of teaching anyone or making political statements.

    I personally like Chipotle’s food, but now I can’t go there because someone wanted to make a political statement. Sure open carry is a right in many states. But businesses don’t want to be caught in the crossfire of the debate and loose any customer base pro or anti gun. When we choose to carry into their establishment WE are forcing them to decide between the customer bases. IF someone wants to stage an Open Carry event PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE contact the business prior to and ensure they don’t have an issue with it. Give the business the choice and don’t force the issue.

    As far as the operational issues brought up. If the crime in the area is that bad, move. Hello. Home/Job be damned, if it isn’t safe for my kids I would leave. But if you feel the need to carry an AR, consider your ammo. Most of it is jacketed, which means it will pass right through the bad guy and go somewhere else. And at a bus stop where there are kids around, I’m not sure is such a good idea.

  45. avatar Rick says:

    nothing wrong with “normalizing” behavior.

    Better stop same sex or interracial displays of affection in public too, it might lead to “tolerance”

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      WOW! Post of the month. Congratulations; you win the internets for May.

  46. avatar Michael LaMay says:

    Hello, my name is Michael LaMay and yes, I am the man in the video.

    I actually stumble upon this site, but decided to check it out. It was painful to read the assumptions and accusations I read by people who have no idea who I am or why I did what I did or why I did it with what I did it with. So I am hoping to shed a little light on the situation.

    First of all, I learned to use and respect weapons when I was about 12 years old. My grandfather was an avid hunter, but he did not hunt for sport, he hunted for food. I was the oldest of eight children, and my father had left us when I was 10. When my grandfather thought I was ready, he gave me a single shot .22 lever action rifle and said that I would learn to kill with one shot or go hungry. We did not go hungry. When I was 18, I joined the US Navy, serving from 1981 – 1986, at which time I was honorably discharged. My wife and I met about 11 years ago, and soon, my only child, my daughter will be turning 10. With things getting tight, and the cost of food going up, I decided to use a good portion of my income tax return to get a good small game hunting rifle with a scope. After about 10 shots to adjust the scope, I was able to maintain a quarter sized consistency at 50 yds. Good enough for squirrel, rabbit and crow. Around the end of April, there was another shooting down the road. A group of teens was walking together and a car pulled up to them. A few words were exchanged and the passenger in the car pulled out a hand gun and started shooting. One young fellow was hit in the chest and died at the scene. This young fellow was on his way to a basketball banquet. You see, he was one of the high school players, a good kid who did not get into trouble, and was sure to be getting scholarship offers. The driver and shooter were eventually caught, and the driver decided to cut a deal for lesser chargers. He testified as to the reason the kid was shot. The Driver and Shooter were from Muskegon, rivals of Muskegon Heights, and the shooter wanted to shoot a kid from the heights. That was his only reason. The kid that was killed was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Crime in the heights has become so common that a lot of people don’t even call the police anymore. Shots fired in the heights are so common that the police don’t really show up unless someone has been injured. So I made the decision to walk my daughter to her bus stop while I open carried my rifle, the only weapon I have. Her bus stop was at a place right in front of an abandoned house, and there were two more abandoned houses within sight of her stop. Often, her and I were the only ones there when the bus picked her up, because the only other people who caught the bus there were older boys who often didn’t ride. I know that most people think that a long gun is only a weapon when the trigger is pulled, but it is much more than that. The butt of a rifle can crack skulls, break ribs or stun long enough to get distance between yourself and an attacker. I see where people made fun of a scope in the city. My question is, even if you have a scope, why would you use it at 10 yards? But let’s say there is a driveby, having an open carry, they are not going to stop to get a good shot, they are going to drive by and hope they hit. Not many people can read a license plate on a car speeding away, but can do it easily with a scope at a distance. I hope this alleviates any questions or concerns, but even more so, I hope it puts to rest the assumptions that I did this just to “prove” I can. By the way, I was doing this for 3 weeks before the police even knew I was doing it, and then it was because I was walking out the door with my daughter when an officer drove by. I just waved and smiled and then waited for him to turn around, which he did.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Michael, I’ve stood by you from the first here at TTAG. I’ve read T.S. Elliot’s THE LOVE SONG OF J. ALFRED PRUFROCK. I’ve read the Cantos of Ezra Pound.

      I fear I will offend you, but would it be okay if you re-wrote your post and broke it into paragraphs? I simply get a headache reading 44 unbroken lines of a post. I believe it’s possible you don’t know better, and I’m fine with that. But you must have read books in school that were broken into paragraphs. Imagine how much harder they would be if they had not so much as a line break, ever.

      I’m on your side. Big time. But PUH-LEEZE, use line breaks from now on. Bless you and your story, which makes perfect sense to me. You must protect your child, no matter what the cost.

  47. avatar eaglesnester says:

    If I lived in that area I would be humping a M1A 7.62X51 Nato with a 20 round magazine, locked and loaded.

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