Attn:KY, OH, TN, residents.

It's legal in Texas to walk around in a leopard skin thong,but it is not commonly done. Kind of a concealed vs. open carry deal, can you do it-yes, should you do it-not unless it's to prove you can or annoy people.
It's legal to wear a yarmulka in Seven Hills, Ohio, the adopted home of former death camp guard John Demjanjuk, but it's not commonly done. Should you do it-not unless it's to prove you can or annoy people.

Between our statements, there is perhaps some trivial distinction, but no meaningful difference.
 
I can honestly say that I have officially lost track of your rationale.This thread started out in a bookstore and has traveled to a Holocaust death camp.
 
Last edited:
I can honestly say that I have officially lost track of your rational.This thread started out in a bookstore and has traveled to a Holocaust death camp.
No, it's traveled to any public place in Seven Hills, Ohio where someone (Jewish or not) might wear a yarmulka. I have it on reliable information that yarmulkas (and those inclined to wear them) aren't especially popular there. Shouldn't Jews (or others so inclined) NOT wear yarmulkas in Seven Hills out of deference to the prejudices of a segment of the population there?

If not, why should the prejudices of those opposed to LAWFUL open carry be given greater weight than the prejudices of those opposed to yarmulkas?
 
Is it legal for you to carry an Ar-15 carbine, while wearing full camo clothing in a public place where you live? If it is legal, would you do it?
 
Is it legal for you to carry an Ar-15 carbine, while wearing full camo clothing in a public place where you live? If it is legal, would you do it?
It's not illegal in Ohio to the best of my knowledge. I don't see myself doing it, but I wouldn't wear a crucifix or a yarmulka either. You won't see me harassing or calling the police on people who do.

I don't like Che and Mao t-shirts. Should people be UNLAWFULLY harassed for wearing them to cater to MY whims?

This isn't about what I WOULD do. It's about whether somebody should be UNLAWFULLY prevented from engaging in a LAWFUL activity.

There's NO legal justification for interfering with LAWFUL open carry that doesn't apply equally to wearing an American flag t-shirt or a crucifix.

If you don't like it, don't do it.
If you don't want to see it, look some place else.
 
It's not illegal in Ohio to the best of my knowledge. I don't see myself doing it, but I wouldn't wear a crucifix or a yarmulka either. You won't see me harassing or calling the police on people who do.

I don't like Che and Mao t-shirts. Should people be UNLAWFULLY harassed for wearing them to cater to MY whims?

This isn't about what I WOULD do. It's about whether somebody should be UNLAWFULLY prevented from engaging in a LAWFUL activity.

There's NO legal justification for interfering with LAWFUL open carry that doesn't apply equally to wearing an American flag t-shirt or a crucifix.

If you don't like it, don't do it.
If you don't want to see it, look some place else.
Why don't you see yourself doing this? Do you think that if people starting wearing camo and carrying AR-15 carbines in public, that it might have a negative impact on public opinion and resulting negative consequences?
 
Why don't you see yourself doing this? Do you think that if people starting wearing camo and carrying AR-15 carbines in public, that it might have a negative impact on public opinion and resulting negative consequences?
I don't have a reason to do so, just as I don't have a reason to wear a crucifix. If you do, and even if you wear a crucifix while you're doing it, barring some other criminal behavior on your part, I won't be calling the police on you.

What I've seen repeatedly in these sorts of discussions is a REAL animosity toward people who make different LAWFUL choices than what the enraged party would. Some people DEMAND absolute conformity to their likes and dislikes. They don't demand just the right to live their lives as they see fit, they demand the right to make sure that EVERYBODY ELSE lives their lives as they see fit. It's the kind of worldview that underlies the desire of a lot of Muslims to see other Muslims killed who convert to another religion.

I've got way too much going on in my life to allow me much time to try to run the lives of others who aren't actually harming me. Making different LEGAL choices doesn't harm me.
 
I don't have a reason to do so, just as I don't have a reason to wear a crucifix. If you do, and even if you wear a crucifix while you're doing it, barring some other criminal behavior on your part, I won't be calling the police on you.

What I've seen repeatedly in these sorts of discussions is a REAL animosity toward people who make different LAWFUL choices than what the enraged party would. Some people DEMAND absolute conformity to their likes and dislikes. They don't demand just the right to live their lives as they see fit, they demand the right to make sure that EVERYBODY ELSE lives their lives as they see fit. It's the kind of worldview that underlies the desire of a lot of Muslims to see other Muslims killed who convert to another religion.

I've got way too much going on in my life to allow me much time to try to run the lives of others who aren't actually harming me. Making different LEGAL choices doesn't harm me.
I don't fee like the display of religious symbols or religious beliefs is relevant to this discussion. You didn't comment on whether or not you thought public opinion should be considered in regards to the public display of firearms. Could you please address my second question?
 
I don't fee like the display of religious symbols or religious beliefs is relevant to this discussion. You didn't comment on whether or not you thought public opinion should be considered in regards to the public display of firearms. Could you please address my second question?
  1. The display of religious symbols and beliefs is entirely relevant to this discussion. If you're going justify harassing people for LAWFUL activities, there's no reason to arbitrarily limit WHICH lawful activities. This is ESPECIALLY true, given that people ARE harassed for displaying religious symbols.
  2. Public opinion is IRRELEVANT to LAWFUL display of firearms, religious symbols or Che t-shirts. If "public opinion" (WHOSE "public opinion"???) is the arbiter of what LAWFUL behaviors can be harassed, there's no reason why the "public opinion" of CAIR can't determine whether you can be harassed for wearing a crucifix in public, or that of La Raza can't determine whether you can be harassed for wearing an American flag t-shirt on Cinco de Mayo.
 
Could someone please put a bullet in this thread and put it out of its misery!!!

If nothing else, this thread has proven what many of us already knew...Most people tend to follow the path of least resistance...even if it's not always for the best long term result.

OK...Now shoot it...:)
 
If nothing else, this thread has proven what many of us already knew...Most people tend to follow the path of least resistance...even if it's not always for the best long term result.
The path of least resistance would be to just not open carry, which is what I do.

However, in this thread as in so many others on the subject, there's something deeper in play.

Instead of just saying that they don't open carry, there is INTENSE animosity by some toward those who open carry. Some of them seem FAR more incensed at somebody who lawfully open carries than at violent criminals. I find that fascinating. I attribute some of it to an intense hatred of people who fail to conform to THEIR ideas. I attribute some of it to an excessive need to be liked, even by people whom they should know will NEVER like them as long as they're gun owners.

I don't open carry, but I find some of the hysterical attacks on open carriers disturbing, and in some cases hostile to fundamental American values.
 
I kind of lump open carry in the same category as motorcycle helmet laws. In Ohio riding without a helmet is legal, though I don't think I've ever done so more than a few times. At one time not wearing a helmet had the hint of outlaw biker, but that's not the case anymore.

The thing that strikes me about those who oppose open carry, both from the pro Bill of Rights camp and the Anti Bill of Rights camp, is how illogical that opposition is.

The number of criminals who open carry has to be almost non-existent. So a logical individual would be forced to conclude that an individual seen open carrying a sidearm would NOT be a criminal and NOT be cause for alarm.
 
cmort666, you are confuseing the heck out of me. Now you say you dont open carry, yet earlier you said you did? (reply #15)
 
cmort666, you are confuseing the heck out of me. Now you say you dont open carry, yet earlier you said you did? (reply #15)
I NEVER said I open carry. See the below EXACT quote from the reply you reference:

Books a Million has a brick and mortar store across the street from where I used to work here. They're not posted. I go there armed all the time.
Do you see the word "open" anywhere?
 
Last edited:
The number of criminals who open carry has to be almost non-existent. So a logical individual would be forced to conclude that an individual seen open carrying a sidearm would NOT be a criminal and NOT be cause for alarm.
The claim that people will have their guns "snatched" is extremely shaky as well. People get challenged to provide an example and almost ALWAYS cite some cop trying to apprehend a violent criminal using less than lethal force.

I MAY have seen a couple of examples. On that basis, CONCEALED carry is just as inadvisable, given that on RARE occasions people who carry concealed (or people in their homes) have been disarmed by assailants.

The bottom line is that nine times out of ten, the most vehement attacks on open carry EXACTLY mirror the most vehement attacks on firearms OWNERSHIP, nevermind concealed carry.

It's obvious that some opponents of open carry have internalized the arguments of those who oppose firearms OWNERSHIP. They're like "Gumby" from "Monty Python". Having just declared that they would tax everyone standing in water, they look down to see themselves standing ankle deep in a stream. All they can do is bellow, "NO!!!"
 
This an excellent discussion/argument, but who is going to convince who/whom, This is how "fan" was born, and most have forgotten what it means. "Fan" was born as "Fanatic", before it was sweetened. I won't bore you with the details, but suggest you look it up in the dictionary.

Pete
 
This an excellent discussion/argument, but who is going to convince who/whom, This is how "fan" was born, and most have forgotten what it means. "Fan" was born as "Fanatic", before it was sweetened. I won't bore you with the details, but suggest you look it up in the dictionary.

Pete
In most arguments, the partisans are rarely won over by their opposites. On the other hand, the curious and the fence sitters ALWAYS are.
 
Okay. I grew up with "larry". One of 9 or 10 boys and one sister. No father (that hung around long), part indian. Every day was a drama with him or several of the other brothers. Most of them were daredevils, two fell to their deaths as window washers on sky scrapers. The biggest trait all had in common seemed to be a lack of common sense. Many did some jail time. I claim it was mostly because of no father figure they could respect growing up.
Larry was a preacher for awhile. So was another brother, both are dead now. Larry got "defrocked" for many outside antic,s.
When we were boys I remember him fighting with our small town police cheif over his insisting on carrying a bowie knife downtown. Think he was 12 years old. Another time we were working at a cannery. Larry kept everyone awake in the bunkhouse witnessing to them after they had worked 12 to 16 hours. He was banished from the factory but came to see me anyway, and got into a fist fight with the boss. Right after that one he had me drive him to oshkosh to see a girl friend. I didnt know her dad had already forbidded larry from seeing her. Dad came home and they got in a scrap. Then the next day larry go`s to the ol man`s shop to argue again. Somehow I was stupid enough to be there too. The old man calls the cops, larry waits for them and trys to argue it out.
Nuther time I hadnt seen larry in many years. We were brought up in wisconsin, but I am liveing in california. I go home, see a car with wisconsin license plates in my driveway. (I am a batchler). I go in the house to find larry, wife and five kids makeing themselves at home. He had credit carded his way in.
Nuther time I go to wisconsin and larry kidnaps me. Takes me down a abanded RR track that is now a nature trail. We go flying through some peoples back yard that had a BBQ going, with me beating on larry.
Another time larry was traveling to another best friends house from northern michigan to wisconsin. As usual he was about stone broke. He stops at a circle K or similar, buys some balony and a loaf of bread. He is a few cents short, clerk wants the full amount. Larry rips the loaf open, takes out about half the bread, gives the rest of the loaf to the clerk and says, "This should about do it!" The fight is on!
Larry suppelmented his income with poaching. Always in trouble and knew every game warden and cop by first name in the area. (At least they knew his!)
Larry lived by the old testiment. He saw nothing wrong with poaching and cooning vegtables and fruit. He also bent scripture to back up his idea`s.
Once I went home on vacation and he wanted me to go to a farmer to get his skiff back he had hid on the farmers land that the farmer had found and consifcated. The farmer had my last name and was a third or fourth cousin of mine that I didnt know.
The last time I seen larry alive I had taken my new bride, theresa home. As always he somehow heard I was in town and showed up at our motel. Wanted me to get his blazer unstuck in a nearby woods. The land was posted, larry had got stuck, piled branchs over the vehicle to hide it. It wasnt over a hundred yards from some peoples back yard! I got him out and tried to give him a education. Larry died shortly after.
My closest friend back home was also larrys closest friend. We all grew up together. Every time I went home the main subject was larry. My friend pulled his fat from the fire habitualy for over the 40 years I was gone. Larry was a fighter, bugged everyone with "his rights", and wondered why every LEO in the country hated him! Larry was a legend.

Wow, I have not read this thread for a long time, and I am very suprised to read all the negative posts regarding mine. I could tell most had not even read the whole post.

First of all, I was conceal carrying until I took my jacket off cause I was hot. I however, do believe in open carry. I believe that one should excercise their rights, to conceal or not to conceal, depending on where you live etc, and if you so are inclined.

I do take offense to the quoted author and many other posts that I should have known better than to open carry in a bookstore in a liberal place, regardless. And the long post about a childhood friend turned lunatic named Larry, that was somehow supposed to be an analogy of me? I did not go into that store open carrying but ended up open carrying on a bench while reading, I am not a hot head looking for trouble, nor do I go around getting in fist fights.

No concealed carry signs do not carry the weight of law in Ky. They can ask you to leave due to private property. One can not be disarmed unless they pose a threat or they have reasonable suspicion, I posed none. The officers came up on me weapons drawn. I mostly conceal carry, however sometimes I open carry and get to show people on the fence that there are reasonable citizens out with their family that open carry and are clearly not crazy people,but are normal citizens excercising their rights. I however would not have gone in there if I had seen the sign, I do not spend my money in such places, nor would I have taken off my jacket.

I did contact a NRA sponsored lawyer in my area and if I had of had the illegal search and seizure of my firearm, and unauthorized detainment of myself, and unauthorized search of my vehicle on film, then the NRA would have paid for the lawsuit. But I did not and did not pursue anything furthur. I would not of thought there would be so many liberal opinions in a forum such as this. We should just keep our rights out of sight and maybe people will just forget about those rights due to them not seeing the gun? I think that is foolishness. I do not live my life walking on egg shells as to not offend anyone, by excercising my rights! Even some gun enthusiasts have been "politically corrected" into a view point that is anti-gun? Maybe they have also gone to "sensitivity classes" at work and have been turned away from common sense by the guise of possibilty of offending someone.

Thanks to the people who understood the rediculousness of what happened that day!
 
Back
Top