Thread: Should Open Carry be Legal?

Originally Posted by Ikari

I already told you why your argument was stupid is in post 246. The basis of your argument is bias, supposition, and faulty logic.

Originally Posted by Ikari

Stupid people everywhere. No gun...well maybe he beats him to death, or into a coma, or causes massive bodily damage. It's not like guns are the only way to kill people. Hell without cars, we'd have like 30,000+ people alive each year, yet no one is clamoring that we should get rid of those.

In a free society where the rights of the individual are protected and proliferated, there is going to be some amount of inherent dangers since nearly all rights can be abused by stupid people to have negative outcomes. Or even worse, not so stupid people purposefully inciting. But that's just what it is. Free never has been nor ever will be safe.

That is not framing an argument that shows that Zimmerman was not a nut with gun and a sterling example of what I’m arguing; and we’re talking about the open carry of firearms here, not sticks and cars. And my argument is not just supposition; using Zimmerman, and even Laughner as examples, my argument shows a cold hard fact.

Everybody has individual rights in this country; up to and including the right to be protected from nuts with guns. If the gun nuts think they live in an unsafe area –move away! Personal responsibility, right? I mean, isn’t that the common sense answer? Sounds like it to me.

Ya’know, the fact that guns nuts say; “well I’m gonna make my neighborhood safe because the II Amendment says I can”, is just a stupid supplanting of the police and or sheriff and serves nothing but the gun nut’s ego and political agenda: I mean, there’s no other logical conclusion that can be reached here. Modern society just cannot sustain or withstand such an obvious threat to public safety. And this foolish notion that the II Amendment is under some sort of threat with respect to “open carry” is just pure unadulterated BS.

Originally Posted by Flippinfunky

No, I dont. I have a phone to call 911 though.

Problem with 911 is that they come after the event you called for has already happen. a .45 slug to the head stops rape instantly .

Originally Posted by cpgrad08

Problem with 911 is that they come after the event you called for has already happen. a .45 slug to the head stops rape instantly .

This post goes right to the point of my argument in post # 281; thanks for making it so eloquently.

Originally Posted by jet57

That is not framing an argument that shows that Zimmerman was not a nut with gun and a sterling example of what I’m arguing; and we’re talking about the open carry of firearms here, not sticks and cars. And my argument is not just supposition; using Zimmerman, and even Laughner as examples, my argument shows a cold hard fact.

Everybody has individual rights in this country; up to and including the right to be protected from nuts with guns. If the gun nuts think they live in an unsafe area –move away! Personal responsibility, right? I mean, isn’t that the common sense answer? Sounds like it to me.

Ya’know, the fact that guns nuts say; “well I’m gonna make my neighborhood safe because the II Amendment says I can”, is just a stupid supplanting of the police and or sheriff and serves nothing but the gun nut’s ego and political agenda: I mean, there’s no other logical conclusion that can be reached here. Modern society just cannot sustain or withstand such an obvious threat to public safety. And this foolish notion that the II Amendment is under some sort of threat with respect to “open carry” is just pure unadulterated BS.

It's not cold hard fact. You are assuming that in these cases no harm would have come to the victim if a gun were not present, and that's logical folly. You have argued on nothing more than bias, opinion, and supposition. As you have clearly once again shown here.

Originally Posted by Ikari

It's not cold hard fact. You are assuming that in these cases no harm would have come to the victim if a gun were not present, and that's logical folly. You have argued on nothing more than bias, opinion, and supposition. As you have clearly once again shown here.

It is a fact.

Originally Posted by jet57

It is a fact.

That is in fact supposition.

Originally Posted by jet57

That is not framing an argument that shows that Zimmerman was not a nut with gun and a sterling example of what I’m arguing; and we’re talking about the open carry of firearms here, not sticks and cars. And my argument is not just supposition; using Zimmerman, and even Laughner as examples, my argument shows a cold hard fact.

The two examples that you cite are as far apart as night and day, and neither depended on open carry being legal. Most gun crime is NOT done with regard to any law, so passing some moronic unconstitutional "ban" law, like those that make recreational drugs illegal, is not going to have any noticable effect on crime, in fact quite the opposite is true.

Originally Posted by jet57

Everybody has individual rights in this country; up to and including the right to be protected from nuts with guns. If the gun nuts think they live in an unsafe area –move away! Personal responsibility, right? I mean, isn’t that the common sense answer? Sounds like it to me.

Great, every time a crime is reported, the "personally responsible" among us, will pack up and move to ???. The idea behind any defensive measure, be it alarms, locks, warning signs, dogs or fences is the same as for carrying a weapon (up to and including a handgun); it is a valuable deterent to being chosen as a crime victim (but is much more portable). Remember that criminals are basically lazy, or they would likely work to earn a living as most of us choose to do; you do not have to do much, to make yourself be passed over as "too hard" of a target, by the typical criminal, thus they continue right past you in search of an easier victim.

Originally Posted by jet57

Ya’know, the fact that guns nuts say; “well I’m gonna make my neighborhood safe because the II Amendment says I can”, is just a stupid supplanting of the police and or sheriff and serves nothing but the gun nut’s ego and political agenda: I mean, there’s no other logical conclusion that can be reached here. Modern society just cannot sustain or withstand such an obvious threat to public safety. And this foolish notion that the II Amendment is under some sort of threat with respect to “open carry” is just pure unadulterated BS.

OK, you may have the luxury of a nearby LEO watching over you, and keeping you (and your neighborhood) safe, but many of us live, work, travel, seek entertainment and/or shop in areas that expose us to considerable crime risk. When seconds really count, the police are only minutes away.

I am sure that your stature and attitude protect you from all harm, that you are the baddest MF in the valley and all sorts of things that many of us are not, so you see no valid reason for ANYONE to carry a weapon, certainly none as effective as a handgun. That is your right, but does not change the rights of, or risks to, others. Just because abortion is legal, does not compell anyone to have one, just as the right to carry a handgun does not require you (or anyone else) to do so. To assert that because YOU feel safe, we must all do things your way, is insane.

Crime happens, a lot to many, many people everyday; to deny any crime victim, or potential crime victim, from doing everything in their power to NOT be the next victim is NOT your right to decide. Try all you want to get the constitution amended to eliminate the 2nd amendment, but do not pretend it does not exist in the mean time. Try all you want to get more crimianls locked up, and for a much longer time, by changing the laws and I will gladly join you, but leave me, and other law abiding citizens, alone with ALL of our rights intact.

You should be able to open carry and conceal carry. As long as you carry, you're okay in my book. If you choose not to, that's okay too. But don't expect me to protect you if and when you find your butt in a sling.

Originally Posted by Ikari

That is in fact supposition.

Oh please; you just can't refute the common sense my argument contains.

Originally Posted by jet57

Oh please; you just can't refute the common sense my argument contains.

You are living proof that common sense is not so common. Please see post #287 ;-)