Any of you gun people open carry?

[Kulindahr]

Thanks so much for putting my points so eloquenty , if you can equate wearing sunglasses and footwear to carrying a gun then it seems pointless trying to reason with you .

As for the quip about yep it does make me feel different "well methinks that shows your mindset* .

<sigh>

Not much for reasoning, are you.

I showed that you have no point: anyone who puts on any accessory feels different because of it. People choose things because they make them feel different.

And I do equate wearing footgear and sunglasses to wearing my gun, because they are all inanimate objects which do nothing but sit there until I need them.

 

[Kyanimal]

Um, Kuli!

Have you ever thought of trading your Ruger for a Sig?

Lower profile, smoother/less draw "snags", more "hand compliant" silhouette, and available in various calibers?

Personally, I like the 9mm Sig, even though that further limits the number of rounds in the mag.

Not that I'm a "gun guy". Would never consider having one in my home! However, that doesn't mean I can't "play" with the awesome collection of the guns that my friends own!

Keep smilin'!!
Chaz

 

[medic1]

<sigh>

Not much for reasoning, are you.

I showed that you have no point: anyone who puts on any accessory feels different because of it. People choose things because they make them feel different.

And I do equate wearing footgear and sunglasses to wearing my gun, because they are all inanimate objects which do nothing but sit there until I need them.

Finally showing your true colours eh , as for showing that i have no point , crap , if you can say that wearing shoes or sunglasses
to carrying a firearm are the same , *nuff said* . Happy shooting................

 

[medic1]

Balance IS important, you know.

I've carried when wearing just my skin, and found that a hip pack on the other side with a water bottle helps immensely.

Why are you walking around wearing nothing but a sidearm and maybe a water bottle ?...............

 

[Kulindahr]

Um, Kuli!

Have you ever thought of trading your Ruger for a Sig?

Lower profile, smoother/less draw "snags", more "hand compliant" silhouette, and available in various calibers?

Personally, I like the 9mm Sig, even though that further limits the number of rounds in the mag.

Not that I'm a "gun guy". Would never consider having one in my home! However, that doesn't mean I can't "play" with the awesome collection of the guns that my friends own!

Keep smilin'!!
Chaz

I kind of like the 1911, and if I got one I'd probably go with a Sig. But of the revolvers I've tried, I like the Ruger SP101.

Though if I wanted a semi-auto, I'd really like a 10mm . . . if anyone makes one.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why are you walking around wearing nothing but a sidearm and maybe a water bottle ?...............

Going to hot springs out in the wilderness...

after first starting down the path and finding large cougar (mountain lion) tracks.

That I had the sidearm made other people feel safe enough I had good company despite the cat tracks. I got asked if I'd actually shoot it, and I said only if the cat was stupid enough to keep coming after a warning shot threw dirt in its face.

The only problem was where to hang the holster while soaking. Fortunately, the weird mineral formation shapes gave me a couple of options.

Weirdest part was when hoofing it back to the truck briefly for additional ice water, and this late-teens chick comes around a corner, looks me over, looks at the Ruger, says "omigod that's HAWT!" to her friend, and her friend asked something about "which weapon?"

 

[xbuzzerx]

I "open carry" on my farm here in Texas.

Any landowner who owns more than 10 acres of land isn't subjected to local mandates, or ordinances.

But I'm not a pussy about it.

Leather harnesses and "guns" are for porn.

I freely walk openly with my 20 Gauge Shotgun, and shoot rattlesnakes at will.



Why should that be disconcerting?

The legal description of a "rattlesnake."

Let's be honest if you live on a farm and deal with wildlife that's a completely different thing than going into a movie theater or a mall with a gun on you.

The second makes people incredibly nervous and for extremely good reason. Anyone who lives in a big city would get that.

 

[Benvolio]

Part of the problem is that too often liberals think in absolutes. Any compromise is subject to their mental reservation to keep working toward the absolute. Regulation of business can never be enough. Taxes can never be high enough.
Conservatives have learned that a compromise with liberals is just a step onto the slippery slope.
So, on gun control, conservatives suspect that compromise for liberals is only a step toward the absolute elimination of guns in private hands.
Recognition of that distrust suggests a way to compromise: by enbodying the compromise into a Constitutional amendment eliminating assault and perhaps other automatic weapons in private hands while guaranteeing some continued right to own firearms.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Part of the problem is that too often liberals think in absolutes. Any compromise is subject to their mental reservation to keep working toward the absolute.

Liberals do this? You mean like how we've gutted our own proposed bills endlessly to try to compromise and avoid Republican filibusters with almost no finger lifted the other way around?

 

[JayHawk]

Let's be honest if you live on a farm and deal with wildlife that's a completely different thing than going into a movie theater or a mall with a gun on you.

The second makes people incredibly nervous and for extremely good reason. Anyone who lives in a big city would get that.

Reasonable statement however have you ever been to Maine? That would make you in total agreement that this guy carrying was okie dokie.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Reasonable statement however have you ever been to Maine? That would make you in total agreement that this guy carrying was okie dokie.

If I lived in Maine though I wouldn't tell people in Detroit or Los Angeles that they were stupid and emotional for not wanting people carrying around weapons in crowded urban areas.

There's been a lot of that going around in these threads.

If you live in a big city and someone comes into a public space with a firearm... no, we can't assume they're just a decent nice guy who deals with rattlesnakes. Nor would that reaction be a very good survival strategy.

 

[JayHawk]

Oh... well oddly I have yet to read that on here although I am positive that sort of attitude exist elsewhere. of course I don't read every posters's post through to the end unless I intend to respond to that person... I have already given the only reason I would open carry... although different circumstance could be applied typically it would be when I desire people to know I am carrying.

Mostly I would carry concealed if i chose to carry at all. For that I have a MP 40 and a shoulder holster. Mostly I simply carry a knife. It is amazingly innocuous and extremely effective in the correct hand.

 

[Kulindahr]

Mostly I would carry concealed if i chose to carry at all. For that I have a MP 40 and a shoulder holster. Mostly I simply carry a knife. It is amazingly innocuous and extremely effective in the correct hand.

And extremely more difficult to master for defense than a handgun.

 

[Benvolio]

Liberals do this? You mean like how we've gutted our own proposed bills endlessly to try to compromise and avoid Republican filibusters with almost no finger lifted the other way around?

You didn't read what I said. A compromise with the liberals is an illusion. Just a step on the slippery slope, because they will immediately come back for more. A solution would be embody a gun control compromise in a Constitutional Amendment limiting some but retaining some guaranteed rights.

 

[bendted]

Reasonable statement however have you ever been to Maine? That would make you in total agreement that this guy carrying was okie dokie.

In East Bum Fuck, yes, but this display happened in our largest city. He was making a statement, not blending in.

 

[Jack Springer]

I "open carry" on my farm here in Texas.

Any landowner who owns more than 10 acres of land isn't subjected to local mandates, or ordinances.

But I'm not a pussy about it.

Leather harnesses and "guns" are for porn.

I freely walk openly with my 20 Gauge Shotgun, and shoot rattlesnakes at will.



Why should that be disconcerting?

The legal description of a "rattlesnake."

Do you grill or smoke the rattlesnake?

 

[xbuzzerx]

You didn't read what I said. A compromise with the liberals is an illusion. Just a step on the slippery slope, because they will immediately come back for more. A solution would be embody a gun control compromise in a Constitutional Amendment limiting some but retaining some guaranteed rights.

This is clearly how conservatives operate on many topics, and the gun debate is one of them. You guys slippery slope really hard that any compromise on x turns into (insert ultimate extreme that is massively undesirable to conservatives.)

However defaulting to assuming that's what's "really up any liberal's sleeve" just turns you into rigid, unreasonable fundamentalists who oppose things not because they're not sensible or because they're unreasonable, but because of what you're afraid liberals might try to do next.

That's an illogical and counterproductive position from which to govern or participate in government.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is clearly how conservatives operate on many topics, and the gun debate is one of them. You guys slippery slope really hard that any compromise on x turns into (insert ultimate extreme that is massively undesirable to conservatives.)

However defaulting to assuming that's what's "really up any liberal's sleeve" just turns you into rigid, unreasonable fundamentalists who oppose things not because they're not sensible or because they're unreasonable, but because of what you're afraid liberals might try to do next.

That's an illogical and counterproductive position from which to govern or participate in government.

Except that's exactly what the leading "gun control" proponents in the country say they mean to do -- step by step, take away all guns. And when you see Schumer and Feinstein and others palling around with those people, it's a reasonable conclusion that they stand in the same position.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Except that's exactly what the leading "gun control" proponents in the country say they mean to do -- step by step, take away all guns. And when you see Schumer and Feinstein and others palling around with those people, it's a reasonable conclusion that they stand in the same position.

My cast-iron proof that your theory is wrong is that I am NOT one of those people-- prior to the Newtown shooting the gun debate came up BEFORE and you and Jayhawk both sparred with me for an extended period before realizing that I was NOT advocating blanket gun confiscation but sensible restrictions/regulation, at which point at least Jayhawk backed off.

Yet because I support mental health checks and restrictions on large capacity ammo clips and automatic weapons you have lumped me lock stock and barrel into an evil, irrational, emotion-driven enemy who is hellbent on taking every last gun out of every last dead hand. And that's how you've reacted to me in every discussion, and it's presumably how you react to everyone who has any less lax view about guns in this country than you do from everything I've seen.

So no-- reacting to all discussion of gun regulation as opposing the Pandora's Box slippery slope of "thier ULTIMATE EVIL MASTER PLAN is to take every gun" is not reasonable, it's not even accurate. Loki posted a chart a couple weeks ago showing HOW FEW PEOPLE support total gun ban and I quote-responded it and said "can we now put to rest the notion that any discussion of sensible regulation = blanket gun confiscation" and of course, we can't. Because you and every gun zealot engages in that exact slippery slope reasoning process to oppose anything and everything, assuming you have an accurate grasp on what everyone else thinks when you don't.

 

[Kulindahr]

My cast-iron proof that your theory is wrong is that I am NOT one of those people-- prior to the Newtown shooting the gun debate came up BEFORE and you and Jayhawk both sparred with me for an extended period before realizing that I was NOT advocating blanket gun confiscation but sensible restrictions/regulation, at which point at least Jayhawk backed off.

Yet because I support mental health checks and restrictions on large capacity ammo clips and automatic weapons you have lumped me lock stock and barrel into an evil, irrational, emotion-driven enemy who is hellbent on taking every last gun out of every last dead hand. And that's how you've reacted to me in every discussion, and it's presumably how you react to everyone who has any less lax view about guns in this country than you do from everything I've seen.

So no-- reacting to all discussion of gun regulation as opposing the Pandora's Box slippery slope of "thier ULTIMATE EVIL MASTER PLAN is to take every gun" is not reasonable, it's not even accurate. Loki posted a chart a couple weeks ago showing HOW FEW PEOPLE support total gun ban and I quote-responded it and said "can we now put to rest the notion that any discussion of sensible regulation = blanket gun confiscation" and of course, we can't. Because you and every gun zealot engages in that exact slippery slope reasoning process to oppose anything and everything, assuming you have an accurate grasp on what everyone else thinks when you don't.

Wait -- how does your position prove anything about Feinstein, Schumer, or any other loudmouth proponents? That's what I addressed.