Except for the fact that these people who carry around long guns in public are causing more damage to the 2nd amendment than most people in the anti 2a crowd could ever hope to.
The "EBR Carry" Debate
- Thread starter squirrels
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Except for the fact that these people who carry around long guns in public are causing more damage to the 2nd amendment than most people in the anti 2a crowd could ever hope to.
they are not damaging the 2nd amendment. thats our constitutional, God given right. they may well be damaging the already skewed opinion of weak minded liberals or antis or moms against everything or any of the state schooled pussified marylanders that are victims of the education they have received.
i dont personally think carrying an ak in food lion while grocery shopping is a good idea but its supposed to be legal in md.
like i said, we need to win this election
knownalien
Ultimate Member
i'm a little shocked at some here. there are ooodles and ooodles of examples of missing the target with a handgun. nearly all of us, sorry, would miss the bad guy in self defense and would need multiple shots. adrenalin is wacky that way. i am willing to bet 2 things: 1) none would miss if using an ebr and 2) pretty sure everyone would behave just a little more if an ebr were in the vicinity. just saying. example: the lady cop during the ft hood shooting emptied her magazine and missed from 7 yards.
Dogabutila
Ultimate Member
- Dec 21, 2010
- 2,362
No, the people doing damage to the second amendment are the people that say that people SHOULDN'T carry long arms in public. That's what the second amendment is FOR. All of a sudden bear isn't okay when you don't like it?
The more you cry about how it's not normal and blah blah alarming to other people the more it reinforces to everybody else that it ISN'T normal and that they SHOULD be scared when somebody is doing it. YOU are the ones making THEIR work counterproductive.
I think that these people do it for shock value. They are basically getting into antis faces. This is why the stores push back. I support CCW and open carry of pistols but not long guns. I don't think the government should prohibit it, but private businesses should be well within their right.
alucard0822
For great Justice
OCTX stopped the practice of LGOC in private buisnesses back in May, lost the PR battle to the media after only a couple months, and haven't seen any new stories since. Appears they formed a new strategy to fight for lawful handgun open carry, not sure why we keep beating on each other over it.
I'd love to be able to OC an AR pistol sometimes. Not as obnoxious.
alucard0822
For great Justice
Guy at my club carries a Serbu shorty in a drop holster, looks both impractical and badass, could be mistaken for a mall ninja if not for jeans and a nice collared shirt. Thing is he is a farmer with limited mobility in his left arm, a holstered 12ga able to be fired with 1 hand fits him very well, and is great at dispatching pets out to 25 yards or so with cheap managed recoil birdshot.
They certainly are. They are creating a whole new group of people who will vote against guns in upcoming elections. Parents who don't own and use guns will never feel safe around groups of people who carry long guns into family restaurants and food stores. These people will vote and we will lose.
i understand your point but i believe those people are already against us because of how we are portrayed on the news and what they are taught in school. i dont think carrying my ar in a grocery store is cool but here its legal and i understand the point people who do that are making.
the constitution and the bill of rights are sacred to me and i will defend those documents with my life if necessary. maybe those people will vote against the bill of rights and the constitution but i dont even know how that is put up for a vote. hopefully if that ever happens i will be long gone by then.
its a shame so many people are pussies in this country now. i remember a day when it was different. everyone had guns in the back windows of their trucks all the time. seeing someone carrying a gun was an everyday site and caused no ruckus. we were allowed to take our guns to school as long as we left them in the truck so we could go hunting in the evenings. shit, this country is starting to just plain suck and i can hardly stand the smell anymore.
Simple answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Very few places in the US are ready to accept it, so doing so is unwise at this time. I do not agree with the way some folks wish to force the issue and do not misconstrue my comments as an endorsement of their actions, but I do understand their message. I grew up in a rural area out west where farmers/ranchers would regularly walk into stores/shops/bars (yes bars) openly wearing a side arm, sometimes with a long gun in hand as well. Nobody gave them a second look or concern. It was natural and ordinary. These people were trusted members of society and nobody doubted their skills (or safety) with these tools in hand.
Do you really need a rifle over a hand gun? Do you really need a corvette to go to the store? Do you need a 3/4 ton truck to go pick up a pizza? It is not about what you really need, but what you have and what you are comfortable with.
So, if self defense is a Right and a responsibility, why should it be limited to concealed carry only? Some people are not "built" for good/easy CCW, should they be excluded? Some people trust their capabilities with long gun over a hand gun, some have physical limitations. Some just have a preference. Should their Right/responsibility be diminished because others are uncomfortable? I'm sure Rosa Parks made folks uncomfortable when chose a seat at the front of the bus. Your Rights do not get restricted because someone feels uncomfortable.
Sorry, but this statement is just too damn condescending. I'm sure you can do a quick Google search to find several recent self defense situations that happen in stores, restaurants, etc. Just do a quick review from a few months ago for the two cops shot while eating at a restaurant, then the killers made a quick jaunt to Wally World to end the days activities. Would you also trust your life and safety to the local Mall cops? US Malls are on the top of most terrorist "hit" lists, it is just a matter of time. If you think the .gov will only use late night "no-knock" type methods, you could be in for a rude awakening.
Good, you are realizing that you may have a problem and that your education (institutional brainwashing?) may be suspect!
See above.
OK, I just did. So have you now changed your thinking? If not, why? Is your mind open enough to change? Did you really start this post to be enlightened, or did you want to become just another person to condemn long gun carry?
.
Tacticalglobe
III %er
Remember this.
If you do or do not choose to carry a firearm over your shoulder and/or concealed.
Someone will have a issue with it no matter what.
And every time a new law is made another one of our God given rights are taken away from us.
If you do or do not choose to carry a firearm over your shoulder and/or concealed.
Someone will have a issue with it no matter what.
And every time a new law is made another one of our God given rights are taken away from us.
1 - AR-15 and AKs are not EBR's. Just a nit.
2 - I do not think it is wise to EDC a long gun for several reasons... major considerations include: my perceived need for one, the legality in various places, consideration of how people around me will feel, the chances of being shot by a police officer, and the fact that I would look like a complete and total D-bag. But this is a personal decision for me. I will not presume to make the decision for others, especially when it comes to a constitutional right.
3 - I see some people explaining their opposition in terms of what they think a person "needs" to defend themselves on a daily basis. Fair enough. I'm sure you sincerely hold that belief in good faith... and you are probably right. But realize that you are using the same reasoning employed by Bloomberg when he says that you only "need" 7 rounds, you don't "need" an AR-15, etc... This line of reasoning is dangerous to constitutional rights. What makes your evaluation of "need" more valid than Bloomberg's or Shotgun Joe's? The problem is that you are asking the wrong question. When it comes to constitutional rights, the question is not what is a good idea, what is "needed" or what other people are comfortable with. The question is "what is protected"? If it was any other way, it would be no right at all.
“In the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with a given right's least attractive practitioners”
― Ayn Rand
2 - I do not think it is wise to EDC a long gun for several reasons... major considerations include: my perceived need for one, the legality in various places, consideration of how people around me will feel, the chances of being shot by a police officer, and the fact that I would look like a complete and total D-bag. But this is a personal decision for me. I will not presume to make the decision for others, especially when it comes to a constitutional right.
3 - I see some people explaining their opposition in terms of what they think a person "needs" to defend themselves on a daily basis. Fair enough. I'm sure you sincerely hold that belief in good faith... and you are probably right. But realize that you are using the same reasoning employed by Bloomberg when he says that you only "need" 7 rounds, you don't "need" an AR-15, etc... This line of reasoning is dangerous to constitutional rights. What makes your evaluation of "need" more valid than Bloomberg's or Shotgun Joe's? The problem is that you are asking the wrong question. When it comes to constitutional rights, the question is not what is a good idea, what is "needed" or what other people are comfortable with. The question is "what is protected"? If it was any other way, it would be no right at all.
“In the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with a given right's least attractive practitioners”
― Ayn Rand
I wonder how many here actually aren't even allowed to own because it's obvious if there were an IQ minimum many wouldn't cut it.
clandestine
AR-15 Savant
OC people are gonna be in for a hurtin'. Anti gunners are planning on getting OC people "swatted".
http://bearingarms.com/radio-show-host-wants-trick-police-killing-open-carriers/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-c...s-start-panic-if-he-sees-open-carry-permit-ho
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2013/Malloy gun berserk.mp3
http://bearingarms.com/radio-show-host-wants-trick-police-killing-open-carriers/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-c...s-start-panic-if-he-sees-open-carry-permit-ho
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2013/Malloy gun berserk.mp3
I don't understand the logic behind this. In my mind, it's no different from saying that you need to silence people speaking an unpopular message to protect those speaking a popular message. But once you realize that it's only those speaking the unpopular message that need protection, the logical flaw is revealed. You see, the whole point of a "right" is to protect the unpopular practitioner... the popular practictioner doesn't need protection.
That's why first amendment cases are full of neo Nazis, cross burners, flag burners and other similar f**ktards. These people carrying AK's to go get coffee at Starbucks fall into the same category. And yes, they probably do great harm to our cause. BUT, the right can't be defended by only protecting it's popular applications. Otherwise, there is no right at all.
Stunning.
I thought an AR 15 WAS an EBR (evil black rifle).
I thought an AR 15 WAS an EBR (evil black rifle).
When I hear EBR, I think Enhanced Battle Rifle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_14_Enhanced_Battle_Rifle
Crossed signals.
