How many open carrys??

[Mike.357]

gun sticker car break in

I googled it and can't find anything that backs it up. Just more conjecture.

[dralarms]

Question! If a cop sees a rainbow bumper sticker,does he keep his hand over his rear?

If he is smart.

[Guest c.a.s.]

I will put a partially used box of 9mm Luger (WWB, FMJ) up for anyone to give a SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF EXAMPLES that the BS being spewed about OCing making you get shot first is true.

SUch as the "example" that "well, say you're walking in the mall, the bad guy would come up behind you and shoot oyu in the head and take your gun".

And yet, that HASN'T HAPPENED.

I bet I'll keep that box.

Actually, I bet, I'll give it to someone who OCs a 9mm handgun.

[TGO David]

A partially shot box of 9mm is a pretty hefty wager. Are you sure you want to bet the farm like that?

[Guest kingtone]

I will put a partially used box of 9mm Luger (WWB, FMJ) up for anyone to give a SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF EXAMPLES that the BS being spewed about OCing making you get shot first is true.

SUch as the "example" that "well, say you're walking in the mall, the bad guy would come up behind you and shoot oyu in the head and take your gun".

And yet, that HASN'T HAPPENED.

I bet I'll keep that box.

Actually, I bet, I'll give it to someone who OCs a 9mm handgun.

im not arguing your point... but i would estimate 95% of the argument is about the hypothetical anyway. thats the nature of carrying a gun... there is so much unseen that couldnt be proven anyway which way.

and i wanna know who 'oyu' is and why he would get shot first anyway?!.. and why would they take my gun after shooting him?

[Glock30Owner]

I will put a partially used box of 9mm Luger (WWB, FMJ) up for anyone to give a SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF EXAMPLES that the BS being spewed about OCing making you get shot first is true.

SUch as the "example" that "well, say you're walking in the mall, the bad guy would come up behind you and shoot oyu in the head and take your gun".

And yet, that HASN'T HAPPENED.

I bet I'll keep that box.

Actually, I bet, I'll give it to someone who OCs a 9mm handgun.

This almost makes me wish I didn't OC a .45... I could always use more ammo.

[Guest c.a.s.]

I don't have a firearm in 9mm Luger (ATM), so I'm perfectly fine in putting up the tiny gold.

Got it for Ammo Day (before the run on ammo) and shot a bit out of a fellow member's M&P, had some fun.

[Guest db99wj]

Why won't it let me go to page 13 of this thread?

Well, that worked.

Finally was able to open this last page.... for a minute there I thought I got locked out.

that has happened to me as well. Last night, a thread had page 2, but I couldn't open it, I posted, and there was page 2 along with 2 or 3 posts that I could see before.

I have OC'd, I had a sticker on my old Jeep for two years (never broken into, here in Memphis), I prefer to CC, due to I don't want anybody to know my business.

Observation of mine on the sticker thing. No, I never had any problems with my car being broken into, but I have had people ask me about it, that I shoot, permits sometimes. This has happened about 3 or 4 times. People do notice. Driving down the road, I notice all cars, and read most of the stickers on the back windshields and bumpers etc. I do pay attention. I see a rangemaster, a Range USA sticker and of course the first thing I think is permit holder. My wife on the other hand, doesn't notice.

Nothing more to add here. I'm out, going to bed.

Edited April 5, 2009 by db99wj

[Guest Bill Lumberg]

I like to choose when I'm noticed or not noticed. When I'm off duty, and usually when I'm on duty, my weapon is covered. It's legal for those who seek attention to carry openly in most places in the state of Tennessee. They should not complain when they get the attention they seek. I support open carry, but it's a generally poor choice for a ccw'er unless you're in a rural or hunting environment.

[Guest c.a.s.]

It is not always seeking attention. It is RARELY so.

Can you PROVE it's a bad choice?

[S&WForty]

It is not always seeking attention. It is RARELY so.

Can you PROVE it's a bad choice?

I am one of those that supports the right to OC, but I will never or rarely do it. In regard to your first two sentences, I know someone that will open carry from time to time, and it is their attempt to seek attention. This same person also told every living soul they know they were getting a permit. And this person's behavior combined with their small size and other features makes them the perfect target of a criminal that sees him first. In the case of this person, it makes gun toters look arrogant and makes him a prime candidate to be overtaken.

On the other hand, I occasionally see a person open carrying, and they act as normal as anyone could ask for. They seem "alert" and I truly doubt a criminal would target them.

If only we could limit OC'ing to those that have the brains and presence to do so safely... I'd hate to see those people's right taken away in time due to the overzealous OC'ers.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Sorry S&W, but I'm going to have to disagree on the limiting OC'ing. I really don't want MORE legislation telling me what I can and can't do. I prefer what little freedom I have. I understand that you're saying that someone with little man syndrome is more likely to be seeking attention, but if they want to OC, great.

[S&WForty]

Sorry S&W, but I'm going to have to disagree on the limiting OC'ing. I really don't want MORE legislation telling me what I can and can't do. I prefer what little freedom I have. I understand that you're saying that someone with little man syndrome is more likely to be seeking attention, but if they want to OC, great.

I didn't mean it by law, just as "if only common sense would prevail." Wishful thinking in other words...

My last sentence could be reworded as "I'd hate for all those with little man syndrome to eventually cost smart OC'ers their right to OC." It's just another case in life where a few morons can ruin it for everyone...

[Guest SUNTZU]

Okay, I understand. On the other hand, as long as he doesn't blow up and give HCP holders a bad name, there is no harm in OC'ing. If someone relates that to gunowners, its on them, I refuse to apologise to everyone for their screwed up belief system.

[dralarms]

Saw I guy today that was OC'ing what appeared to be a NAA 22 with the long barrell on it, it was hard to tell and with the custom holsterunless you were looking (and knew what to look for) you would not know what it was. The holster actuall looked like a knife holster but knives don't have the "birds head" grip on them.

[Glock30Owner]

If only we could limit OC'ing to those that have the brains and presence to do so safely... I'd hate to see those people's right taken away in time due to the overzealous OC'ers.

I've sometimes thought that limiting "rights" to those with a brain might be a good idea.

But, for example, if we limited free speach to only those that have "the brains and presence to do so safely" we'd have no reporters or journalists.

[Smith]

I've sometimes thought that limiting "rights" to those with a brain might be a good idea.

But, for example, if we limited free speach to only those that have "the brains and presence to do so safely" we'd have no reporters or journalists.

Actually our forefathers did. That is why voting was limited mainly to land owners. If you can't prioritize your life around investment, you shouldn't be able to manage the investments of the country.

[Guest Bill Lumberg]

Very true.

I like to choose when I'm noticed or not noticed. When I'm off duty, and usually when I'm on duty, my weapon is covered. It's legal for those who seek attention to carry openly in most places in the state of Tennessee. They should not complain when they get the attention they seek. I support open carry, but it's a generally poor choice for a ccw'er unless you're in a rural or hunting environment.

[Guest KWW67]

Actually our forefathers did. That is why voting was limited mainly to land owners. If you can't prioritize your life around investment, you shouldn't be able to manage the investments of the country.

+1

[mcurrier]

Actually our forefathers did. That is why voting was limited mainly to land owners. If you can't prioritize your life around investment, you shouldn't be able to manage the investments of the country.

+ 2

[Guest justme]

Actually our forefathers did. That is why voting was limited mainly to land owners. If you can't prioritize your life around investment, you shouldn't be able to manage the investments of the country.

our forefathers advocated slavery as well...so not everything they did was good.

Rights should not be limited to the investment holders of this country. This is exactly like Chicago trying to currently limit gun ownership by zip code...

how many of you would be willing to put up with limiting your rights based on the zip code you live in? For example, your right to be free from un reasonable searches and seizures might apply to you in Clinton, but travel across the county line into Knox County--and your 4th amendment right is out the window..or the 2nd Amendment..you can own a gun and carry it in Trousdale County, but drive to Davidson Co. and you have absolutely no right whatsoever to even own a gun, much less bear one in public...be free from cruel and inhumane punishment/treatment in Anderson Co, but cross into Campbell Co. and you could then be subjected to waterboarding, sleep deprivation, subject to loud/blaring music 24/7, and be forcefully interrogated--tortured into confessing to any crime, simply because you chose to limit your 8th Amendment right and be willing to have it apply in only certain locations....anyone willing to give up their 8th Amendment right and have it zipcode specific?

It is the same thing that you all are talking about by "limiting rights to people with a brain"...who decides who has the brains and who does not? What exactly constitutes having the "brains" to exercise your rights? I understand what you are wanting to do--but to implement something like that we might as well pull down the stars and stripes and run up the Hammer and Sickle and stop all pretense of this being a free country comprised of a free and independent people.

you all get the idea.

Edited April 17, 2009 by justme

[timcalhoun]

our forefathers advocated slavery as well...so not everything they did was good.

Rights should not be limited to the investment holders of this country.

Our founding fathers did not advocate slavery. It was just legal to own a slave and some had slaves and some didn't. Adams hated slavery and thought it to be a sin against God and he was not alone in those thoughts.

[Guest justme]

Our founding fathers did not advocate slavery. It was just legal to own a slave and some had slaves and some didn't. Adams hated slavery and thought it to be a sin against God and he was not alone in those thoughts.

And silence itself was a vote for it. If they did not advocate against it--they advocated for it, because accepting the status quo was just the accepted thing to do.

They may not have vocally advocated for its continuation--but even at the writing of the Constitution, the Constitution itself did not apply to slaves, not until the passage of the 14th Amendment as a result of Military Reconstruction Act after the Civil War..and even after the Reconstruction period--the south still sought to have defacto slavery through advocating the Jim Crow laws and the poll tax..so actually yes--our forefathers did advocate slavery in the finer sense of the word.

[Smith]

And silence itself was a vote for it. If they did not advocate against it--they advocated for it, because accepting the status quo was just the accepted thing to do.

They may not have vocally advocated for its continuation--but even at the writing of the Constitution, the Constitution itself did not apply to slaves, not until the passage of the 14th Amendment as a result of Military Reconstruction Act after the Civil War..and even after the Reconstruction period--the south still sought to have defacto slavery through advocating the Jim Crow laws and the poll tax..so actually yes--our forefathers did advocate slavery in the finer sense of the word.

They liked it so much and it was so universally accepted that it lead to an incredibly devastating civil war, but never mind facts.

[Smith]

our forefathers advocated slavery as well...so not everything they did was good.

Rights should not be limited to the investment holders of this country.

Should illegal immigrants have voting rights in this country?