skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for Coolusername2007

( Coolusername2007 )

Comments made by Coolusername2007

Lawmaker Wants Law to Ban Carrying Unloaded Guns Openly in Public

When did the 2nd Amendment become a grey area of the law? Open carry is the 2nd Amendment. Open carry is definitely not new, just recently reinvigorated after a very long drought. Loaded open carry was legal in CA up until 1968.

March 15, 2010 at 9:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Escondido Group Carries Guns In Starbucks

Hey kirkf, I'll attempt to answer your questions. Here goes...

First, its important to note that we do not want to open carry unloaded, we only do so to comply with the law. The unloaded statute is ridiculous and is racially based. It comes from the Black Panthers protest in '67, its a very ugly law. However, having a loaded magazine on your person is legal, therefore you can transition from unloaded to loaded very quickly with practice, so its better than being unarmed. Realize that the bad guy wants to live as much as you do, so it's not likely that he will attack an armed person, rather he will attack the defenseless. Open carry is a visible deterrent, conceal carry is not.

No, open carry is not strictly a political statement for conceal carry. There are those who choose open carry and those who choose conceal carry, its a personal decision. I prefer loaded open carry, just like law enforcement. Why? Because it offers the best possible deterrence from becoming a victim and it offers ideal access in an emergency.

An open carrier would never carry without ammo readily accessible. The criminal will have to weigh the risks and benefits of trying to take an armed person's weapon. I believe they'll choose life over lead breathing steel any day of the week, they’ll choose a more defenseless person to attack.

Our founders believed the right to defend one's self and property was absolute. I believe the same. Limits on gun carry only establish defenseless zones of which bad guys take advantage. Laws created in vain attempts to create "safe zones" only criminalize the law-abiding and put the defenseless in danger, because by definition criminals don't follow the law. Further, because we value life more than anything else, we would only take a life as the absolute last resort to preserving ours. Only a lunatic would attempt to solve an argument or disagreement with a gun.

What prevents criminals from committing any crime? Right now criminals are carrying concealed loaded guns without permits and with criminal records. If confronted by one how will you defend yourself? Sure you can give them everything you have, but that doesn't mean you’ll live. You established with your question why unloaded open carry should be repealed so we can go back to loaded open carry. The current laws have given criminals an advantage by disarming you. Of course the politicians get their conceal permits just for the asking.

As our founders stated in their own words...
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

September 18, 2009 at 5:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Escondido Group Carries Guns In Starbucks

That's OK, you can think we're unrealistic. That's the beauty of living in a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy, we are as free to reject mob rule group think as you are. And no I won't keep my guns locked up in a safe, and your attempts to control my rights doesn't fly. Should I now attempt to control your free speech due to your irrational fears? Or am I only granted protection for the rights you think I need, nevermind what I think? And as far as mass killings go, you can bet I'll be hitting the deck. The difference is I'll be able to defend myself. Will you? If you did a little research outside of the anti-gun movement you might find some of your data is suspect. And if you're going to put forth "real data" you should really cite the source, otherwise its just more fear mongering. Never mind the federal crime stats of states with less gun control and lower crime rates than say NY, DC, and CA. But that's not real data to you is it? And why would anyone call the cops because of someone's holstered sidearm? What's more why would cops show up for a holstered sidearm? Shouldn't they be out investigating crimes?

The real problem with gun control, is its not about guns, its about control, as you have so willingly demonstrated.

September 17, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Escondido Group Carries Guns In Starbucks

Wow, you really went off the deep end didn't you, randolphslinky? You equate responsible, law-abiding gun ownership and exercise of our inalienable right to self protect with total, stark raving madness and lunacy and overall nutjob wackado. Nice. If you think this is what gun ownership and the 2A is all about, then maybe you're not ready to start open carrying, just saying. Relax a little there SpongeBob, you're going neurotic on us.

Oh and yes, self protection is supposed to be easy, very easy. If you choose to spend years training in the martial arts, then you're free to do so. My guess is a martial artist would much rather walk away, not confront, and not fight. Funny, so do open carriers. We only differ in our choice of method for self protection. The 2A says nothing about guns, it says "arms". You have the freedom to choose your preferred "arms", whether its a knife, a gun, pepperspray, tazer, stick, or whatever. And to assume open carriers don't train and aren't proficient is uninformed to say the least. We value life, over everything else, which is why we carry.

September 17, 2009 at 10:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Escondido Group Carries Guns In Starbucks

skish, fixed it for you... It is not the societal norm for individuals to carry a gun in public IN CA. But it will soon be. Societal norms have nothing to do with inalienable rights that are protected by the Constitution. Guns in the people's hands create a polite and peaceful society. Just look to other state's crime rates where the people's rights aren't being infringed upon, then compare to New York, DC, and CA...places where gun control is out of control, and so is the crime.

randolphslinky, the framers didn't put the 2A in the Bill of Rights to protect people from bears, or for hunting purposes. Research your history, the 2A exists so the people can protect themselves from the dangers of big government.

We the People have no constitutional right to police protection regardless of restraining orders or even gross negligence. Nor do we want it. History has proven again and again that living in a police state is neither desirable, safe, or free from tyranny.

“The history of the law for centuries proves this to be the case. ...But no instance can be found where a civil action has been sustained against [the Sheriff] for his default or misbehavior as conservator of the peace by those who have suffered injury to their property or persons through the violence of mobs, riots, or insurrections.” SCOTUS, South v Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)

September 16, 2009 at 9:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )