Today I played "Open Carry"

[sniper7]

Will she go out in public with you while you are wearing those shorts?

you bet, i'll try to get some pics. just be sure to have shades on as these white legs have seen very little light this year!

[KevDen2005]

you bet, i'll try to get some pics. just be sure to have shades on as these white legs have seen very little light this year!

Someone needs to take you to the store and get you up to the times man

[StagLefty]

you bet, i'll try to get some pics. just be sure to have shades on as these white legs have seen very little light this year!

Aluma-Hyde FDE works great early in the season

[Byte Stryke]

I agree with you on that, I am a supporter of not having to pay for CCW, however I did pay because I wanted to be able to conceal and to carry in states that recognize CO.

But no one should be penalized for exercising any fundamental right, in my opinion, that's why the Framers put them there, and they didn't do it haphazardly at all, which many anti-gunners would have you believe.

So wait, you mean they didn't intend This?

[spyder]

I told my wife we should wear our droplegs and mp5k's just for the hell of it and carry on with our normal day (as a joke). She just shrugged her shoulders and make a joke about how most people would probably think they were airsoft.

[KevDen2005]

So wait, you mean they didn't intend This?

LOL....That was too funny

[ldmaster]

yes, denim shorts - I'm old, we get away with things like calf-length dark socks and sandles ALL THE TIME!

What I am or am not isn't much of an issue - in the sense that I should have no more rights than the next guy.

Kev, 911 call to PD, soccer mom - etc... "put them in a bad spot"? Frankly EACH and every call you have for an unknown problem puts a cop in a bad spot, it always has. The idea that the guy you're stopping is armed at least puts you in the right frame of mind that you should always be in anyway. Dispatchers ask more questions too, like "what is he doing", thusly:

911 Soccermom: "Oh my god, there's this guy with a gun here!!!"

Dispatcher: "A gun? Where are you?"

911 Soccermom: "I'm at the jewelry store with my children and he's got a gun!"

Dispather: "What is he doing? Is he waving it around, is he trying to commit a robbery?"

911 Soccermom: "No, it's in a holster and he's looking at necklaces."

Dispatcher: "So he's not threatening anybody, or pointing it at anybody? Did he threaten you?"

911 Soccermom: "No he hasn't threatened anybody YET, but I'm uncomfortable about it and you just don't know nowadays about that kind of stuff."

Dispatcher: "So, this guy is scaring you? You have your children with you too?"

911 Soccermom: "yes, I'm very frightened"

Dispatcher: "Can you leave the area? Is he blocking your exit?"


The conversation could go on, but my whole point is that dispatchers ask a LOT of questions about what is going on - and it all goes in the dispatch record.

But that's sort of besides the whole point of my exercise. I didn't do it on purpose, it just worked out that way and I saw no reason to not continue to do it.

I've got a HUGE problem with cops telling citizens that they need to avoid doing something so that the "dont' have a problem". It's one thing to advise a citizen to not go into a bad neighborhood carrying cash falling out of your pockets, it's another thing entirely to advise them to not draw the attention of the police department that is SUPPOSED to be there to keep the peace.

Sure a LOT of cops would call it "stupid". Does this make them right? Does this "advice" reflect anything other than a supreme belief that "All men are created equal, but some men are more equal than others?"

Concealed carry was once considered "polite", now it's a governmentally granted LICENSE? A license to be polite?

At some point when we bend over even when nobody is watching, all we're doing is conditioning ourselves to continue to bend over. When we advise others to "not make a scene" we're telling them that their RIGHTS are not worth standing up for, because "someone may object". We're encouraging the creed of the slave.

Don't believe me? Well, if "you" are right, then WHY have have our rights been getting chopped off at the knees every time we turn around? If your method of "passive conduct" is so effective at preserving our rights, why hasn't it worked? You're either helping increase our rights, or by your passive stance you are ceding EVERYBODY'S rights to the clamorous mob that wishes to make all human rights venal. And yes I mean venal.

Think the existence of CCW laws are some kind of gigantic victory? While we've been gloating about that, we've lost many other rights and had our numbers pared down even more. HOW stupid is the law banning importation of gun barrels? Colorado changed the procedure and law governing the restoration of civil rights post-conviction, and it is now nearly impossible to have them restored unless you got the right kind of plea agreement. Think you're just curtailing the rights of BAD people with this law? "When they came for the ... , I said nothing, for I was not a ...". We are all about how we're "law abiding" and forever prattle on about how WE would never be caught doing something wrong. Then, one day, we get accused (I actually mean arrested) of something that loses us our gun rights. let's say you and your wife were arguing, and she answered her cellphone during the argument, and you grabbed it and turned it off. Bingo pal, you've just committed an act of domestic violence. you didn't destroy the phone, you didn't wrestle it from her hand, or hurt or threaten her in any way (you were arguing about the Broncos). If your neighbors, or the person she was on the phone with, called the police because you were yelling (imagine that, someone yelling about the Broncos) and you told the cops what I've just outlined - it doesn't MATTER that your wife doesn't want you arrested. Domestic Violence is a life sentence for your gun rights. Period. Dot. Don't think it can happen to you? Why? Because you're white? Because you're "law abiding" or you used to Be a cop? Or perhaps because you read a bunch of books on the law, or you're a nuclear physicist, or any of a number of reasons that YOU think puts you above such accusations. While you weren't looking, somebody convinced a whole bunch of people that you are a LIFETIME THREAT to the safety of others.

yeah, it can't happen to YOU, gee, you're one of the "good guys". Right? You're not some poor dumb high school dropout working at McDonalds! The law was set up to insure that not ONE person ever be wrongfully convicted of a crime, that it were better that 100 guilty men go free than 1 wrongfully be even accused. We're so invested with "law and order" these days that we get constantly convinced that the "NEW law enforcement tool" (fill in the blank from Patriot Act to IR scopes on a drone) will only be used against those nasty, filthy drug smugglers/terrorists. Then you read the post the other day about how law enforcement training is actually encouraging LE's to view ANYBODY as a potential terrorist. But gee, not me, because I always buy my CCW rights from the government and I never do anything to risk notice.

coward.

So, since this is America, you are perfectly free to express your dismay at my "conduct" - but understand that I do not consider that dismay to be admirable.

[Irving]

You seem pretty angry. I don't think anyone in here was saying that you shouldn't have open carried. Will it make you feel better if I open carry for a day too?

[spyder]

You seem pretty angry. I don't think anyone in here was saying that you shouldn't have open carried. Will it make you feel better if I open carry for a day too?

Ya, I was wondering myself why he sounded so offended...

[ldmaster]

Just hate it when my message gets hijacked and pushed off-center.

Folks, SOMEBODY should be angry.

Oh, gosh, it's probably time for somebody to call DHS and report my "anger" Isn't that what we're learning to do?

We should always respond according to our principles, I simply dislike it when fear and avoidance are disguised as principles, especially when it's cloaked in "virtue".

The experiment wasn't intentional, it just started happening and I saw no reason to not continue it.

It's also true that my external appearance doesn't generally encourage people to fear me. White(ish) guy, short hair, older NOT wearing camo clothing, or an NRA hat, or an ugly-ass ponytail with full beard with a quote from Adolph Hitler on his t-shirt, no keyring held onto my belt by a dog collar chain or any other cultural indicator that I'm a "gun totin' redneck who is PROBABLY a nazi and kicker of kittens. It was as much a test of what signals set people off, as it was of their observational skills and bias. I might try it with a "Palin in 2012" t-shirt, that should do it.

The next time I do it, probably, I will plan it better (or maybe not).

Ultimately my point is that even a simply exercise in a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, will draw detractors who will almost always explain why I was stupid without actually calling me stupid, simple inference, and almost ALWAYS do it to make them seem wiser (somehow).

Hence, "coward"

Argument doesn't need to be about anger, and argument that seems to be more virtriolic isn't necessarily expressing anger either. Come to think of it, the whole use of the word "anger" has become perjorative to the extreme. Just saying it conjures images of Charlie Sheen beating up another woman...