×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
12

Open carry versus concealed carry.

submitted by Laputois to whatever 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 07:02:42 ago (+13/-1)     (whatever)

Although sometimes concealed could be deemed more appropriate I refuse to give up my 2nd amendment rights. The constitution says nothing of having to submit to training, apply for a permit and pay in order to carry an arm. When you go through that process you validate it. I prefer to open carry. It does not put onerous rules on me. I don't agree to identify if a zog approaches me. I don't have to keep some silly permit on me at all times. I don't have to cough up my fingerprints. If you do not live in an open carry state you should move to where they respect the Constitution.


39 comments block


[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 18:54:34 ago (+0/-0)

Why not both?

[ - ] MayhemInChief 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 13:39:39 ago (+0/-0)

With open carry, I see it as an active deterrent for opportunist criminals, but a higher risk for organized criminals, as well as someone randomly trying to take your gun. It may be a great option when you have a disability making it hard to quickly draw a CC.

I see it's usefulness when you want to quickly strap up when going to the store. Clipping a holster on your belt is a lot faster than clipping it in your waistband. However, if you want something for a quick gas station run that is mostly concealed, an outside the waistband holster covered by a shirt or jacket is what you're after.

---------------

Personally, I'd make cc standard practice, with occasional open carry to help normalize/maintain gun culture. Those occasional open carry would be things like running to the convenience store, or carrying a revolver in Tombstone Az.

[ - ] GlowNiggerDick 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 12:37:18 ago (+0/-0)

You can go ahead and give that a go and see how that works out for you.

[ - ] ScheduledSuicide 1 point 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 12:26:38 ago (+1/-0)

I jus were minez on a gold chain around muh neck.

[ - ] texasblood 2 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 11:57:44 ago (+2/-0)

I do both.
Sometimes being real clear about my position is required in advance.
Conceled while mowing sucks as well

[ - ] Oven_Stuffer_3000 2 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 12:47:59 ago (+2/-0)

carrying isnt always comfortable, but is always comforting

[ - ] RedBarchetta 4 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 10:53:12 ago (+4/-0)

Open Carry is an invitation for morons to blindside you and take your weapon. You're also the greatest threat. Concealed is so much better.

[ - ] Cmonthisismyname 11 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 10:15:56 ago (+11/-0)

I see OC as a tactical disadvantage. The advantage of surprise, of your enemy underestimating you, can win wars.
CC without a permit. That's a Constitutional flex.

[ - ] Laputois [op] 2 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 10:43:58 ago (+2/-0)

I agree with you concerning Constitutional flex and in some circumstances that concealed carry has a tactical advantage. Conversely open carry will discourage many interactions that might occur requiring brandishing a concealed carry arm or having to use it. In some circumstances simply lifting your shirt to show that you are armed can be considered brandishing. Open carry cannot be misconstrued or be considered brandishing. In most states, “brandishing” is not a legally defined term. In fact, only five states (Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Virginia and West Virginia) currently have laws on the books that directly reference brandishing. When it comes to concealed carry, many states have their own definitions and may refer to brandishing as “Defensive Display,” “Improper Exhibition of a Weapon” or “Unlawful Display.” Actions from resting your hand on the grip of your pistol or knife or sweeping your cover garment aside to expose your concealed carry weapon may be considered brandishing.

It is important to understand that the lack of a formal legal definition of brandishing does not mean that brandishing a firearm, whether accidentally or with the intention of intimidating, will not result in criminal charges. Brandishing a firearm may fall under other state laws, such as aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, improper use of a firearm, menacing, intimidating or disorderly conduct. Criminal legal consequences may vary from misdemeanor citations to felony charges based on the state or jurisdiction that you are in and the specifics of your particular incident. Depending on your state, additional penalties may incur if your brandishing incident occurs in the presence of a law enforcement officer, public official or emergency medical responder.

Brandishing laws are complicated, so if you have any questions regarding where and when you may or may not display a firearm, consult with an attorney who is familiar with firearms laws in your area.

[ - ] Shotinthedark 0 points 2.9 yearsJul 7, 2022 18:19:56 ago (+0/-0)

Same, if I'm a criminal that wants to rob you and you're open Carrying ill just shoot you in the back of the head and take your wallet and gun

[ - ] Laputois [op] 0 points 2.9 yearsJul 8, 2022 17:49:58 ago (+0/-0)

Your logic escapes me.

[ - ] Shotinthedark 0 points 2.9 yearsJul 11, 2022 12:46:06 ago (+0/-0)

I would've just stolen your wallet and if you had a concealed gun you would have a chance to stop me.

[ - ] o0shad0o 3 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 10:03:38 ago (+3/-0)

Carrying concealed is just smart, especially when a lot of people do it. When a criminal can't tell when victims are armed or with what it's a strong discouragement.

I still applaud the new laws allowing for open carry; among other things, one issue that turns up in areas that allow concealed carry is you'll sometimes accidentally "print" - someone will be able to tell you're carrying. Then the lib calls the cops and then you've got a headache.

[ - ] Laputois [op] 3 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 10:14:42 ago (+3/-0)

I would think that if a lot of people open carry it would be more of a detriment to criminal activity because instead of "guessing" the criminal would actually be painfully aware of it. Most criminals are stupid, they have little consideration given for consequences and I doubt they concern themselves with the idea that granny is concealing at the Family Dollar.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 09:35:48 ago (+1/-1)

Nigger, are you reading what I'm writing?

Terry frisk are not considered a search by the SCOTUS, but most certainly is a search, and it is conducted of you are detained, not arrested, based on "reasonable articulable suspicion", not probable cause.

It's one of many clear demonstrations that the federal government, including the courts, don't give a fuck about the constitution where it gets in the way of total control over the people.

[ - ] Laputois [op] 1 point 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 09:59:27 ago (+1/-0)*

Dickhead, you have issues reading the title of the thread. I have created an entirely new thread just for you so that you can argue about Gold and silver and Terry frisks and stop shitting up this post. If you have anything to add about the merits of Open carry versus concealed, and the equipment to do so, post it, otherwise fuck off. https://www.talk.lol/viewpost?postid=62c5945408abf

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 09:15:24 ago (+1/-0)

Have you been searched against your consent without a warrant?

Yes. A Terry Frisk isn't considered a search, but it is ac search and I didn't read anything about a while driving a motor vehicle exception to the 4th amendment. Where is that exactly?

[ - ] Laputois [op] 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 09:20:05 ago (+0/-0)*

Were you committing a crime? Did the officer articulate that crime or a suspicion of a crime? If so you injected yourself into it by your behavior. If the Zog's suspicion was bogus or fabricated, then sue them, remove their qualified immunity and get a payday. As far as the motor vehicle, did you sign your license to operate said vehicle? If so, why don't you inform yourself on what you agreed to by signing it.

[ - ] jsac 2 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 08:30:25 ago (+2/-0)

You will be the first person shot when the criminal decides its time to act. I dont disagree with open carry, however, I carry for self protection, not to make political statements.

[ - ] Laputois [op] 2 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 09:04:31 ago (+3/-1)

Can you cite any event where "the criminal" shot an open carry weapon first? Any links to a story where this happened?

[ - ] PeckerwoodPerry 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 10:52:15 ago (+0/-0)

I'm sure there's a few bank robberies where that's happened.

[ - ] Laputois [op] 1 point 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 11:57:42 ago (+1/-0)

Again If you can cite a link I would be interested in learning. Banks are privately owned entities and as such are capable of refusing to allow guns on the premises. Open carry in a bank is rare enough I have never witnessed it. I have seen many banks that strictly prohibit firearms with notices on the door. Banks are one of the instances where I would defer to conceal carry as I mentioned above. Bars are another. My state prohibits open carry into a bar. Concealed is allowed but the "permit" holder is prohibited from consuming alcohol while armed.

[ - ] PeckerwoodPerry 0 points 2.9 yearsJul 6, 2022 20:13:43 ago (+0/-0)

I'm not getting you a source. Many banks in Florida have armed guards in their payroll and they are the first concern for would be robbers. That's just common fucking sense.

[ - ] Laputois [op] 0 points 2.9 yearsJul 7, 2022 05:17:43 ago (+0/-0)

An armed security guard, is not a general member of the public who is open carrying and entering a bank. I was not demanding a source to challenge your statement, just extremely sceptical that it has ever happened outside of a western movie.

[ - ] jsac 0 points 2.9 yearsJul 6, 2022 22:07:54 ago (+0/-0)

Sometimes a source isnt required for common sense.

[ - ] Laputois [op] 0 points 2.9 yearsJul 7, 2022 05:24:17 ago (+0/-0)

Just because you believe something does not makes it common sense. The common in common sense refers to a consensus, frequent occurrence, likely happening event or outcome. As such, sources should be abundant and easy to reference, or COMMON.

[ - ] deleted 8 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 08:09:18 ago (+8/-0)

deleted

[ - ] Laputois [op] 2 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 09:23:11 ago (+2/-0)

GOD bless Texas, except for the beaners, queers and Californians. God can bless the steers.

[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 5 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 07:44:49 ago (+5/-0)

Ohio just returned my right to CC w/o a permit. I can now do either open it concealed. Which is your preference?

I dislike the waist band holsters. But I feel a little ridiculous wearing a drop leg. I've considered a shoulder, but they are unpopular for whatever reasons, and are only really good if you're wearing a jacket (if you want it concealed).

IDK, I'm conflicted.

[ - ] patchCodeUnsuccessful 3 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 09:01:53 ago (+3/-0)

From some site:
Safety is the biggest disadvantage to the shoulder holster. While you draw, you will sweep bystanders to get your gun on the target. Keep in mind, most gun ranges and gun classes will not allow shoulder holsters, because of this safety issue.

[ - ] Oven_Stuffer_3000 2 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 08:19:58 ago (+2/-0)

carrying the tier one agis elite at the moment. its comfy and i have no complaints. I wouldnt mind open carry if i only worked in rural areas, but i have to dress up for work and not all employers allow arms on site. but its never stopped me.

[ - ] Laputois [op] 2 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 09:02:14 ago (+2/-0)*

I use a shoulder holster. In the car I have installed a tactical quick release holster on the ashtray where it is visible from the outside of the vehicle and easily within my reach. In circumstances where concealed is necessary, I do that too, but I am not buying into any stinking "permit"

[ - ] Had 2 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 12:04:27 ago (+2/-0)

IWB appendix carry imo. Fastest, most concealed draw, and if you need your gun you want it fast. I use a gun with a manual safety that is easily disengaged with the thumb during draw (M&P shield subcompact). It also has a trigger safety. Just personal preference. I've carried iwb side, back, and appendix. I vastly prefer appendix, but there's a mental barrier there that took me time to overcome. The manual safety gave me much more confidence.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 07:04:35 ago (+0/-0)

respect the Constitution

Which state respects the "only good and silver" part? Or the "free from search and seizure" part?

[ - ] Laputois [op] 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 07:18:14 ago (+0/-0)

The Only gold and silver refers to states that wish to issue their own currency. They are still enabled to do that if they wish. I imagine if a state did produce silver and gold coins it would quickly undermine paper fiat. Problem is that the price of the metals are not stable. You can make a hundred dollar gold coin that may be worth $95 one week, and $110 the next. Freedom from search and seizure is still intact. courts have respected the right. If a zog violates your rights you can sue to remove its perceived qualified immunity and put a hefty civil suit on it and the department it represents.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 08:45:34 ago (+0/-0)

The Only gold and silver refers to states that wish to issue their own currency.

Is English a 2nd language for you? That's not what it says. And the USD isn't very stable, either. And just wait till it's no longer the world reserve currency.

And the 4th amendment requires a warrant for any search or seizure, but that isn't happening now is it?

[ - ] Laputois [op] 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 09:09:05 ago (+0/-0)*

Well since your original response misspelled Gold for good and confused me slightly at first I have wondered if English is a second language for you. I think I have a decent grasp of the constitution. Are you a beaner, a steer, a queer or a Californian? In my experience that is the majority of "Texans". Have you been searched against your consent without a warrant? (other than operating a motor vehicle under certain circumstances) Then I suggest you consult and engage an attorney and get some of that money for violating your rights.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 09:22:52 ago (+0/-0)

So, using your "grasp" of the constitution, show me where it discusses the use of gold and silver as only pertaining to the creation of a currency for the individual states.

The constitution is a document that pertains to the federal government, not the states, yet here you are suggesting that it is prescribing how states can or cant do things. I think you don't know what you're talking about.

[ - ] Laputois [op] 0 points 3.0 yearsJul 6, 2022 09:30:12 ago (+0/-0)

You are getting stupid now. SO I think this is the last comment I will make in response to you on this TANGENT. The constitution DEFINES the separation of States rights and Federal rights. You think it only pertains to Federal powers? Try reading again. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.