Random Thoughts And Questions

[Lund Explorer]

Not wanting to hijack any of the existing threads, here are three random thoughts and questions for you to consider and perhaps reply to.

 

Before we start though, I want to explain that I have had a long history with many types of weapons, including my time in the military police, as well as a state certified hunter safety instructor.  I've also had a lifelong fascination with times when irony which many times leads me to such thoughts.

 

First, Open Carry. 

 

Here in West Michigan, we have had a few cases where a group has been very active in pushing for more open carry.  In several instances, it has led to lawsuits involving local police agencies such as Grand Haven and Grand Rapids.  The linked article includes an interesting post dealing with the subject, and the group's view of it.  While the leader of this bunch does state in the article that he thinks that getting a CCW is a good idea and thinks everyone should follow the letter of the law, I found the following quote rather interesting.  "You're a law abiding gun owner," Lambert said; " Your job is to desensitize the public"

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/01/grand_rapids_open-carry_advoca.html

 

Thoughts - I might be completely wrong, but remaining diligent one of the best keys any of us have to remain safe.  We're taught from one of the first days in driver's education to drive defensively.  Your favorite TAM certified bartender has been instructed to know when you are approaching way too drunk and not waiting for you to fall off your barstool.  LEO's have been taught to observe and react.

 

Question - Are we going to be any safer once everyone openly carrying a gun, no matter how scruffy looking he might be, can be ignored?

 

Second, Concealed Carry.

 

Two gentlemen, both CC and packing, driving down the same road.  Nobody knows for sure what started it all, but road rage accelerates to the point where one driver pulls off the road into a parking lot.  Second driver pulls right in behind him.  Curses follow, fists are swung, and at some point, they all retreat to the last option.  Slap Iron & Blast Away!  Both drivers died!

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/09/road_rage-related_shootout_lea.html

 

Thoughts - If there was ever a case where irony could rear it's ugly head, this very well could be the case.  Too bad both died, as it would have interesting to hear if either thought if their CC made it safer to drive aggressively, safer to pull over to escalate the situation, or to not just back down before it was too late.

 

Question - While you're going about your day, have you ever considered the fact that the other guy just might be as heavily armed as you are?  That maybe they are a little more aggressive because of the fact that they're packing? 

 

Third, When Opinions Can Get You Fired.

 

Take the case of long time writer and gun advocate Mr. Dick Metcalf.  Perhaps you've already read about this.  30 years of writing in untold numbers of media, the mere thought that the words well regulated could possibly mean that some sort of regulation could be tied to a person's second amendment rights brought about such a firestorm that he was fired.  The editor who had the distasteful job of cutting him loose resigned as well.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/7/longtime-gun-writer-guns-ammo-fired-piece-question/?page=all

 

Thoughts - A long, long, time ago, I was taught that everything is on a pendulum were rules, regulations, and just about everything make swings widely to either side of almost every issue.  Somewhere in the middle of those swings, the majority resides and looks forward to every swing to reverse itself.   In my simple minded opinion, we're seeing that pendulum being pushed way beyond the center by an extremely vocal group who wants to see so little regulation that we'll soon see gun shops open for business across the street from the prison's gate.  We've gotten to the point where a man who spent most of his life promoting gun ownership being fired for suggesting that there has to be some kind of rules.

 

Question - Have we gone too far, not far enough, or just about right?

 

[Wbeadlescomb]

So you are saying that carrying a pistol is a bad thing, concealed or other wise?

[Lund Explorer]

So you are saying that carrying a pistol is a bad thing, concealed or other wise?

 

I'm not sure where you saw that in my original posting.  I simply brought up three news stories that dealt with other topics in this section.  I commented on each and asked for replies.

[Brian Needham]

1st....... I am a law abiding man, as a CCW permit holder my job is to protect me and my own(friends family ect), and perhaps a defenseless stranger..... nothing less nothing more.

 

2nd....... those two guys are a couple of john waynes that give everyone a bad name. I am actually much calmer since I started carrying, drive slower, ect ect.

 

3. My employer knows I carry, and I am glad they do not have an issue with, nor would I stop carrying if they did.

 

does that answer your questions?

[jbsoonerfan]

I am a legal Concealed Carrier. However, I don't carry all the time. I carry when I go on vacation or to an event where it is allowed and I think it is needed to protect myself or my family. I am a calm guy. There isn't much that gets my blood boiling. I would avoid a physical altercation at all costs. Not because I am a "sissy" but for the simple fact that I am old enough to know that fights usually don't end well for those involved. I would never open carry. If I am packing heat, I don't want anyone to know that I am. I am all for 2nd Amendment rights, but there are always going to be idiots that take those rights to extremes (See example 2). Both of those guys became "tough guys" because they had the legal right to arm themselves. I don't ever want to have my Constitutional rights taken away, but I do think there is a little reason to everything.

[Duckbutter100]

"Question -   That maybe they are a little more aggressive because of the fact that they're packing?"

 

I believe your logic is completely flawed in this thought process. 2 dummies road raging that shoot each other are just 2 dummies. This in no way makes the average CCW person "a little more aggressive" in fact I would argue the exact opposite.

 

These folks are normal law abiding citizens for the most part and in no way are looking for trouble or a chance to use their weapon. They just simply feel safer for having one to protect themselves or loved ones. As a husband and father, I feel its my duty to provide protection for my family but in no way would I ever want to have to pull my weapon in a bad situation around my daughter. 

 

My opinions are based on the hundreds of folks I've met in CCW/NRA classes. My buddy teaches the NRA/CCW class on my personal range so I usually go to help out and meet folks.  

[Stlbob]

I carry daily and have for years...even before it was legal  ( heaven  forbid,but like dad told me its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 )

 

I am a pussycat,i have always avoided pointless anger.I have nothing to prove and i find a lot of fights are truly just that,trying to prove who wont back down.When you carry you are held to a higher standard.Some of the simplest things can spiral out of control and turn deadly..Heck i read the news everyday and there is always some crazy news story about 'A realative shots another over the last piece of pizza'..so you can never tell how things will end up...so i avoid pointless confrontations..

 

now if the bacon hits the frying pan i have the resolve to do what needs to be done.

[nick76]

Answer 1: I don't personally think that everyone open carrying will make us any safer. The element of surprise when being attacked not only works for the attacker, but also the person being attacked. Unfortunately there are way to many people who get Steel Courage when carrying and would become more confrontational because of such. We as a society will always judge others based on appearance and carrying an openly visible weapon won't change that. Case in point- Michigan State University had an alert issued this week saying a man with a gun was seen entering a building. The man turned out to be an ROTC recruit with a training weapon going to the ROTC offices located in the building. It is all a matter of perspective.

Answer 2: I do often consider that the other person could be well armed. Part of carrying a weapon is knowing how to use it and being proficient at using it. If you always second guess yourself or your ability you probably don't need to be carrying. Part of my training is learning to assess the situation and remove myself of at all possible. If it gets to the point where I am forces to pull my firearm then I have no other option. My experience is that ultra agressive people usually do it for attention and to get others do give in to their demands.

Answer 3: In the State of Michigan any business owner has the right to say if you can or cannot carry. In Michigan most employees are at will. If you can't follow your employers rules at the work place then you can either seek other employment or you can ask to discuss the rules. I let my staff carry as long as they are licensed, but I know other employers who strictly prohibit it. Not really any different than visiting a place where you cannot carry, they have the right to ask you to leave.

just my 2 cents.

[fadetoblack21]

1: I don't think that everyone carrying will make us safer, but I do believe it is a constitutional right that should be upheld. If we judge people on appearances then I would scare the hell out of people. Fact is, I am a nursing student and a rather liked person at the hospital I work at. Just because someone is "scruffy" doesn't mean he is dangerous and shouldn't open carry a firearm.

 

2: I don't worry about who is "packin" and who isn't, period. I don't really care if the guy next to me has a gun. Unless he pulls it, I have nothing to worry about.

 

3: No well regarded 2A supporter would suggest that "well regulated militia" means we need firearms regulations. The man deserved the backlash that he got. 

 

I think we have enough gun regulations on the books, the problem is the enforcement of those regulations. Gun control proponents suggest banning a firearm (AR15) based on the fact that its semi auto and scary looking. The fact is that an AR15 accounts for far fewer deaths than many common household items, such as ball bats and kitchen knives. In fact, most semi automatic small caliber hunting rifles can do the same thing an AR15 can, in a much less scary looking package. 

 

Again, we don't need new laws banning certain firearms or restricting peoples rights, we need enforcement of the thousands of firearms laws already on the books. I do think we've gone too far, we've gone too far in trying to criminalize gun owners. 

[jbsoonerfan]

1: I don't think that everyone carrying will make us safer, but I do believe it is a constitutional right that should be upheld. If we judge people on appearances then I would scare the hell out of people. Fact is, I am a nursing student and a rather liked person at the hospital I work at. Just because someone is "scruffy" doesn't mean he is dangerous and shouldn't open carry a firearm.

 

2: I don't worry about who is "packin" and who isn't, period. I don't really care if the guy next to me has a gun. Unless he pulls it, I have nothing to worry about.

 

3: No well regarded 2A supporter would suggest that "well regulated militia" means we need firearms regulations. The man deserved the backlash that he got. 

 

I think we have enough gun regulations on the books, the problem is the enforcement of those regulations. Gun control proponents suggest banning a firearm (AR15) based on the fact that its semi auto and scary looking. The fact is that an AR15 accounts for far fewer deaths than many common household items, such as ball bats and kitchen knives. In fact, most semi automatic small caliber hunting rifles can do the same thing an AR15 can, in a much less scary looking package. 

 

Again, we don't need new laws banning certain firearms or restricting peoples rights, we need enforcement of the thousands of firearms laws already on the books. I do think we've gone too far, we've gone too far in trying to criminalize gun owners. 

 

 

I agree that we have certain rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. However, remember that document is over 200 years old. That same document also protects us from housing British soldiers. I'm pretty sure no one is worried about that.

[Chris186]

I agree that we have certain rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. However, remember that document is over 200 years old. That same document also protects us from housing British soldiers. I'm pretty sure no one is worried about that.

The document may be over 200 years old, but it was written by the founding fathers. Its what this country was built on. Its not like some lawyer drafted it late at night in his office. As for housing British soldiers, there is a guy I work with who was in the military in England. He is actually looking for a place to stay, and if he asks me I will gladly tell him I dont have to let him in per the constitution.

[Lund Explorer]

Expanding on my thoughts.

 

1a. The key to this was the quoted gentleman that he wanted people "De-Sensitized" to seeing others openly carrying some sort of weapon.  I simply feel that this flies into the face of rational thinking.  You can say that I'm judging a book by it's cover, but I would find it hard to believe that no one else has ever come face to face with someone that immediately set off your inner alarm.  Now imagine that person using open carry.  Isn't it a little too late to become concerned "after" the guy is pointing that gun at you?

 

1b. I'd like to hear from some of the LEOs on here to see if their training should be to ignore anyone they saw openly carrying, or perhaps doing a really lousy job of CC. 

 

2. The reason I included this story in my original post was to get people thinking about the issue that everyone, including those predisposed to turn into John Wayne, should have the right to CC.  As I said before, it's impossible to ask the two what was going through their minds during the entire incident, because unless they now reside in Sam's house as ghosts, its probably too late.  Professionals like our LEO brethren all go through screenings prior to being put on the streets.  The military does the same thing with it's troops.  Isn't it possible that the same should be required with John Q. Public?

 

3. Most disturbing to me was the third part of my post, where a proven pro-gun author's career could come to such an inglorious end for no other reason than he used his 1st amendment rights to question our 2nd amendment rights.  I read the entire opinion piece he wrote, and wish I could attach to it here, but it wasn't that bad.  Maybe I'm just too old, but I was taught that every right comes with certain responsibilities.  I think it would be easy to understand why our 1st amendment rights don't give us the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater, so I can't see the reason that certain reasonable restrictions can't be placed on the rights given us in the 2nd or any other one.

[Brian Needham]

I agree that we have certain rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. However, remember that document is over 200 years old. That same document also protects us from housing British soldiers. I'm pretty sure no one is worried about that.

and every word, every clause, every check and balance is as relevant today as it was then, IMO

 

We are lucky to have had the founders and framers we did construct our founding documents.

[tomustang]

Expanding on my thoughts.

 

1a. The key to this was the quoted gentleman that he wanted people "De-Sensitized" to seeing others openly carrying some sort of weapon.  I simply feel that this flies into the face of rational thinking.  You can say that I'm judging a book by it's cover, but I would find it hard to believe that no one else has ever come face to face with someone that immediately set off your inner alarm.  Now imagine that person using open carry.  Isn't it a little too late to become concerned "after" the guy is pointing that gun at you?

 

1b. I'd like to hear from some of the LEOs on here to see if their training should be to ignore anyone they saw openly carrying, or perhaps doing a really lousy job of CC. 

 

2. The reason I included this story in my original post was to get people thinking about the issue that everyone, including those predisposed to turn into John Wayne, should have the right to CC.  As I said before, it's impossible to ask the two what was going through their minds during the entire incident, because unless they now reside in Sam's house as ghosts, its probably too late.  Professionals like our LEO brethren all go through screenings prior to being put on the streets.  The military does the same thing with it's troops.  Isn't it possible that the same should be required with John Q. Public?

 

3. Most disturbing to me was the third part of my post, where a proven pro-gun author's career could come to such an inglorious end for no other reason than he used his 1st amendment rights to question our 2nd amendment rights.  I read the entire opinion piece he wrote, and wish I could attach to it here, but it wasn't that bad.  Maybe I'm just too old, but I was taught that every right comes with certain responsibilities.  I think it would be easy to understand why our 1st amendment rights don't give us the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater, so I can't see the reason that certain reasonable restrictions can't be placed on the rights given us in the 2nd or any other one.

 

1. I believe the purpose of pushing Open Carry by some is to show the 'bad guys' out there that the US not a playground to commit crime.

 

1b. Why? their job is to enforce laws, not go around and check every open carrier. That's like asking cops to waste their time checking wood studs in every house to see if their up to code.

 

2. Whats the difference? Open or closed carry, you think if I have my gun exposed I will be different. LEO/Military also have the exposure to some sick stuff in this world, they are more prone to getting psychological disorders from that, those tests make sure it doesn't become an issue.

 

3. The point is yelling fire in a crowd will cause panic. I have never seen someone open carry create a panic. Even the little news stories about how 'concerned mom' called the cops about a open carry guy in a mall so they showed up doesn't mean anything. If the mom wasn't so uptight and knew the laws better it wouldn't even have been an issue. The shooting in connecticut also fueled that concerned mom because it was a few weeks after it.

 

 

[A-Jay]

Considering how the general public is routinely bombarded by the Media with every conceivable subject and agenda imaginable ~

 

Spay / Neuter your Pet, Don't Drink & Drive, Don't Text & Drive, Don't Talk on the Phone & Drive,  Wear a seat belt, wear a helmet, Don't Smoke, Use the little blue pill, Take Cialis, Wash your Hands, get a flu shot . . .on and on and on.  I think you get my point.

 

Has anyone ever wondered why "The Media" doesn't present Informational material regarding OC  where it's Legal ?

 

A-Jay

[VolFan]

IBTL!

[A-Jay]

IBTL!

 

Did I do that ?  Over the line ?

 

I Hope not.

 

Sorry

 

A-Jay

[jbsoonerfan]

Nickname: Plays with Trains

[Long Mike]

I number of posts on this thread have been deleted because two grown men have to resort to behavior befitting a child.

[Lund Explorer]

1. I believe the purpose of pushing Open Carry by some is to show the 'bad guys' out there that the US not a playground to commit crime.

 

1b. Why? their job is to enforce laws, not go around and check every open carrier. That's like asking cops to waste their time checking wood studs in every house to see if their up to code.

 

2. Whats the difference? Open or closed carry, you think if I have my gun exposed I will be different. LEO/Military also have the exposure to some sick stuff in this world, they are more prone to getting psychological disorders from that, those tests make sure it doesn't become an issue.

 

3. The point is yelling fire in a crowd will cause panic. I have never seen someone open carry create a panic. Even the little news stories about how 'concerned mom' called the cops about a open carry guy in a mall so they showed up doesn't mean anything. If the mom wasn't so uptight and knew the laws better it wouldn't even have been an issue. The shooting in connecticut also fueled that concerned mom because it was a few weeks after it.

 

"The point is yelling fire in a crowd will cause panic."    Yes, that is the point.

 

"I have never seen someone open carry create a panic."  No, the point I'm trying to make is that the author's opinion is what caused the panic.  A small vociferous minority of gun owners completely overreacted to a nonissue.  For many years, the right of gun ownership has come with certain rules and regulations.  Neither the author in his editorial, nor I in my reason for this thread was not to suggest that we need an excessive amount of new regulations or restrictions.  It's simply that this same majority should understand that any regulation is not a bad thing.

 

I fully understand your viewpoints on this subject, and I would hope that you understand both Mr. Metcalf's viewpoints, and mine.  I also understand that you may not agree with them, but I think it's important that all of us have the right to express those views.

[fadetoblack21]

I agree that we have certain rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. However, remember that document is over 200 years old. That same document also protects us from housing British soldiers. I'm pretty sure no one is worried about that.

 

 

The document may be over 200 years old, but it was written by the founding fathers. Its what this country was built on. Its not like some lawyer drafted it late at night in his office. As for housing British soldiers, there is a guy I work with who was in the military in England. He is actually looking for a place to stay, and if he asks me I will gladly tell him I dont have to let him in per the constitution.

 

As CD1542 pointed out, just because the constitution is 200 years old doesn't make it irrelevant. The fact stands that this country was founded on the constitution and the bill of rights. In the bill of rights is one particular amendment, the second amendment, which states that our right to bear arms "shall not be infringed." That specific statement has been under scrutiny pretty much since the day it has been penned and has managed to stand the test of time.

 

And just to put it out there, anyone who claims that the 2A never could have accounted for modern firearms seems to forget that we didn't have 24/7 television news when the 1A was written. People want to pick and choose what amendments are relevant in today's world and it doesn't work that way. You either get all amendments or the constitution and bill of rights fails, plain and simple.

 

Edit: please don't mistake me for one who thinks we should have no firearms regulations. I do believe that sensible firearms laws can make a difference. The problem is that what is proposed by our congressmen/women today seems to fly in the face of logic. Lets ban a firearm that accounts for a fraction of 1% of all firearms murders, but do nothing about mental health and other problems that may reduce ALL violence. What we currently see today in the form of proposed "gun control" is just a farce to restrict gun ownership, plain and simple.

[jbsoonerfan]

As CD1542 pointed out, just because the constitution is 200 years old doesn't make it irrelevant. The fact stands that this country was founded on the constitution and the bill of rights. In the bill of rights is one particular amendment, the second amendment, which states that our right to bear arms "shall not be infringed." That specific statement has been under scrutiny pretty much since the day it has been penned and has managed to stand the test of time.

 

And just to put it out there, anyone who claims that the 2A never could have accounted for modern firearms seems to forget that we didn't have 24/7 television news when the 1A was written. People want to pick and choose what amendments are relevant in today's world and it doesn't work that way. You either get all amendments or the constitution and bill of rights fails, plain and simple.

 

Edit: please don't mistake me for one who thinks we should have no firearms regulations. I do believe that sensible firearms laws can make a difference. The problem is that what is proposed by our congressmen/women today seems to fly in the face of logic. Lets ban a firearm that accounts for a fraction of 1% of all firearms murders, but do nothing about mental health and other problems that may reduce ALL violence. What we currently see today in the form of proposed "gun control" is just a farce to restrict gun ownership, plain and simple.

 

 

Trust me, I have a full understanding of the Constitution and its intentions. The Bill of Rights was added to ensure that individual rights would not, or could not be infringed upon. However, the 3rd Amendment is a prime example of the founding fathers still putting much of their emphasis on England and specifically George III. There was no way they had the foresight to see how bad things have got in America, and that is why the Constitution is a living document. It can be changed, and I am sure women and blacks are thankful for that.

 

I am PRO gun, so I don't want to see any more anti gun legislation passed. The bad guys are gonna have guns no matter the laws. All anti gun laws do is punish honest people.

[Brian Needham]

actually Madison(if memory serves) argued AGAINST the bill of rights.

 

He feared exactly what is happening today........ everyone thinking they are so durn special that  they are protected by the bill of rights to do or say anything, thus the entire concept would be perverted.

 

 

simply, our founders were the smartest men EVER. even with the arguments they had over how to write or word our founding documents, they all made sense... unlike here in gun forum sometimes, LOL. 

[Brian Needham]

. There was no way they had the foresight to see how bad things have got in America, and that is why the Constitution is a living document.

 

 

I contend they did see the possibility of it getting this bad, and that's the way they finitely worded it the way they did.

[jbsoonerfan]

Without the promise to add the Bill of Rights, the Constitution might not have been ratified.