• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What problem does open carry solve?

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Sort of like when Paul was talking to the Greeks who believed in many gods....bringing it to common ground?
Honestly I'm not sure which moment you're referring to (end of Acts 17?), but I fear I shouldn't liken my words to those of Paul, as I suspect his motives were infinitely more pure than mine.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,189
Location
White Oak Plantation
...Restoring liberty by law is part of the solution to that problem. It establishes liberty in one of the cornerstones of our societies (which is law,) and sets a standard of respecting other members of that society, per the non-aggression principle.

----

I invite everyone to critique, rebut, agree, affirm, elaborate, add to, or otherwise respond.
Is the "fix" for the "problem" to enact more laws to establish liberty? Or, is the "fix" for the "problem" to repeal laws that will restore liberty?

Please clarify the above. Thanks in advance.

Also, OC fixes the problem of having to buy two different sizes of trousers.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Is the "fix" for the "problem" to enact more laws to establish liberty? Or, is the "fix" for the "problem" to repeal laws that will restore liberty?

Please clarify the above. Thanks in advance.

Also, OC fixes the problem of having to buy two different sizes of trousers.
I believe that you are understanding correctly that I am using the terms or ideas "problem" and "solution" in a different way than those that would purport that OC "doesn't solve any problems." This is completely intentional, and that is part of what I mean by perspective shift. They may not even realize that their views are rooted in inequality. They rut in high-level argument without examining the roots or foundations of the opposing views. Obviously when they say that OC doesn't solve any problems, they mean on a high level. The "issue" that they're desiring to unjustifiably rule others as a result of a (perhaps subconscious or even unintentional) fundamental belief in inequality isn't even within the realm of their consideration. I seek to point them toward that consideration, albeit jeeringly. I hope this makes sense, even if one doesn't necessarily agree it's a good approach to rebutting the anti-liberty folk. :)

I didn't seek to differentiate between or address the issue of whether or not the passing bill adds or subtracts from the total amount of text that makes up our law - only referring to establishment of liberty as what effectually results in a person being able to legally exercise more liberty than previously. That repealing bad law is exponentially better than adding additional exceptions to a bad prohibition, bloating an already bloated licensing scheme, was more or less beside the point I was trying to make. I think that the lack of provided context made my meaning and intention unclear.

Some assert that my attempts at clarification only further confuse, but I really hope that isn't the case for anyone but them. :)

Not for you specifically, but I'll include in this post a visualization of my thought.
 

Attachments

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,189
Location
White Oak Plantation
I believe that you are understanding correctly that I am using the terms or ideas "problem" and "solution" in a different way than those that would purport that OC "doesn't solve any problems." ...
Thanks, but ascribe to me any understanding just yet. If I understand your premise, the only problem OC solves is that the exercise of a right (liberty) can be displayed. What is not displayable is the prior restraint(s) on liberty. OC displays liberty even though a permit is needed to avoid the consequences of the prior restraint. Most folks don't know that OC is "legal" (where it is not unlawful, or permitted). When they find out that OCing "legal" they may hold reservations, disagree with "it," about my intentions when they see me OCing but they should know (now)/(and)remember that I am "legal."

The problem that OC solves is the problem with OC that resides in our fellow citizen's mind.

Equality under the law is the repeal of all prior restraint laws. Hold to account actions, not possibilities, or the mere existence of a thing.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,831
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
Thanks, but ascribe to me any understanding just yet. If I understand your premise, the only problem OC solves is that the exercise of a right (liberty) can be displayed. What is not displayable is the prior restraint(s) on liberty. OC displays liberty even though a permit is needed to avoid the consequences of the prior restraint. Most folks don't know that OC is "legal" (where it is not unlawful, or permitted). When they find out that OCing "legal" they may hold reservations, disagree with "it," about my intentions when they see me OCing but they should know (now)/(and)remember that I am "legal."

The problem that OC solves is the problem with OC that resides in our fellow citizen's mind.

Equality under the law is the repeal of all prior restraint laws. Hold to account actions, not possibilities, or the mere existence of a thing.
I'm liking where you're heading with this line of reasoning.
 

maselec1970

New member
Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
5
Location
Olivebranch ms 38654
I have spoken to several police officers , sitting court justices in Mississippi where I reside , the open carry law passed in July 2014 to clear up any confusion with the CCP statue that remained on the books , the problem was that Ms didn't ban open carry the state never defined Ccp only so it was left to local interpretation by who ?the officer when in most cases the judge assigned to the situation threw it out . So my discussion with local authorities simply revealed one answer . The authorities are not worried about the gun they can see or the law abiding citizens ! The gun they don't see is the problem ! The person who feels like the world is his or hers or theirs for the taking it doesn't matter wether black , white yellow or red , the individual that doesn't work ,doesn't have any regard for human life or the basic laws and principals this land was founded on . They are the culprit and truly whY this debate is about . That's my research
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,280
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I have spoken to several police officers , sitting court justices in Mississippi where I reside , the open carry law passed in July 2014 to clear up any confusion with the CCP statue that remained on the books , the problem was that Ms didn't ban open carry the state never defined Ccp only so it was left to local interpretation by who ?the officer when in most cases the judge assigned to the situation threw it out . So my discussion with local authorities simply revealed one answer . The authorities are not worried about the gun they can see or the law abiding citizens ! The gun they don't see is the problem ! The person who feels like the world is his or hers or theirs for the taking it doesn't matter wether black , white yellow or red , the individual that doesn't work ,doesn't have any regard for human life or the basic laws and principals this land was founded on . They are the culprit and truly whY this debate is about . That's my research
In case it hasn't been said, welcome to ODCO!! (open carry dot org)

What you've related above (bolded) is a version of something OCers identified ages ago. Here is the quick explanation:

The foundational theory of government in this country is that power originates with the people, who then delegate that authority to government. A legislature passes a law against something. The cop has authority to enforce the law.

If something is not clearly illegal, then the cop has no authority to arrest. Which is to say, unless a cop can clearly say to himself that such-and-such conduct is definitely illegal, he cannot possibly know whether he even has authority to arrest that person.

So, this isn't really a case of cops being afraid of the gun they can't see, no matter what they told you. It is a case of some police being willing to violate other human beings by taking law enforcement action against them without knowing to a dead moral certainty they have the authority to take that action. And, violating one of the most basic principles of government and rights in this country.

In a landmark case in the late 1960's, Terry v Ohio, the US Supreme Court quoted an earlier case. Its one of my all-time favorites:

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford.

No right more sacred. Free from all restraint, and even interference. Unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. "Left to local interpretation" is not clear and unquestionable authority of law.

Now, I don't have the old MS statute in front of me, so if the foregoing doesn't apply, please disregard.
 
Last edited:

radio3579

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
29
Location
earth
The problem open carry solves for me, not having to dress around the firearm. It is hotter than hell here in the spring, summer, and fall (we hit 90 degrees already in March) with open carry I simply dress comfortably and carry my gun.

I also draw faster without cover garment, and since open carry is what we do at work with our duty gear it makes sense to stay with what I do day in and day out.

I do have my state LTC as well, when I am not at work I prefer to go about my business just like everyone else does, rarely will I wear my badge in front of my holster- when I am off, I am off......... there are others on the clock getting paid to deal with problems.
 

PATRIOT88

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2015
Messages
171
Location
Hickory, NC
To me, Open Carry solves three problems. Comfort Level (Especially during warm or hot weather.) Ease of access and Speed. (I want to access my defense device, or arms quickly and not have to worry about pulling back a shirt or jacket to access and draw what the situation requires.) Effective Deterrant. Very few sane criminals will try assaulting, raping or robbing an armed individual who open carries. There are some strict concealed carriers along with the fear mongering idiots that will argue open carriers make themselves a target without even considering that the open carrier could be sufficiently trained with heightened situational awareness, such as Security, High-Risk Security, Police, Veterans, Active Military personnel.

To me, criminals generally target the weak. They want an easy target. In a way, Criminals are akin to a panther or lion. While Open Carriers are akin to A Rhino or Cape Buffalo. This is pretty much what would happen based on the analogy above if a criminal tried anything with an open carrier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxpxlWo5wiM Not a chance in hell!
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,415
Location
here nc
To me, Open Carry solves three problems. Comfort Level (Especially during warm or hot weather.) Ease of access and Speed. (I want to access my defense device, snipp
is that your knife or toy gun?

ipse
 

PATRIOT88

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2015
Messages
171
Location
Hickory, NC
Its annoying me that people keep bringing up the past and inquiring about a now non-existant article of property. ONCE MORE, THE REPLICA IS SOLD and HAS BEEN GONE for ages; sold for cigarette money at a pawn store last year. Defense device=not considered an arm or improvised weapon, such as MACE, Sabre Defense Spray, Tasers and Stun Guns.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Its annoying me that people keep bringing up the past and inquiring about a now non-existant article of property. ONCE MORE, THE REPLICA IS SOLD and HAS BEEN GONE for ages; sold for cigarette money at a pawn store last year. Defense device=not considered an arm or improvised weapon, such as MACE, Sabre Defense Spray, Tasers and Stun Guns.
The bold are all considered weapons, especially the mace. I would suspect someone carrying around a mace would get a going to the terror of the people arrest. All but the mace are considered less than lethal weapons. All of them can kill under the right conditions, electric weapons could disable a pacemaker, set off a defibrillator, pepper spray can result in a fatal allergic reaction. Even a legal pocket knife is a weapon. Mace, well let's just say hitting someone over the head with one could obviously cause a fatality.

Please tell me you do not go about in public carrying a mace.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Unless you specify pepper spray, then I take what you type as what you mean. Mace is a brand of pepper spray, not a mace, is your pepper spray actually branded mace? Why not just say pepper spray? This is what somebody was trying to tell you concerning coherent posting. Pepper spray is still a weapon though, mostly a defensive weapon, but a weapon. As far as device, a handgun is a device that is used as a weapon, a car is a device used to get from point A to point B.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,415
Location
here nc
guys, really...i truly never knew where or how mace was made or actually came from...KOOL...

sincere thanks, lurnt sumthng tooday...

ipse
 

PATRIOT88

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2015
Messages
171
Location
Hickory, NC
I have a traditional/old world view or take on arms. An arm must be purpose built and used in warfare atleast once in history. Sword, Dirk, Certain Knives, Muskets, Sabres, Dagger, Modern Firearms, Flails, Medieval Mace, Warhammer, Spear, Bow, etc.

I still do not consider defense spray, Tasers, Stun Guns anything but a defense device.

Arms are strictly lethal for the most part. Defense devices not so much.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
weap·on
ˈwepən/
noun
noun: weapon; plural noun: weapons

a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
"nuclear weapons"
a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest.
"resignation threats had long been a weapon in his armory"


Wiki

A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as crime, law enforcement, self-defense and warfare. In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.

While just about any ordinary objects such as sticks, stones, cars, or pencils can be used as weapons, many are expressly designed for the purpose – ranging from simple implements such as clubs, swords and guns, to complicated modern intercontinental ballistic missiles, biological and cyber weapons.


[wep-uh n]

Examples
Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.


http://www.pepper-spray-store.com/pages/states

Pepper spray, although made from an item you can get in the produce section, is considered a weapon by most civilized countries, and is restricted to some extent in nearly all of them. Pepper spray causes temporary blindness, pain, breathing problems and panic: when it's used excessively, it can kill.
 
Last edited:
B

Bikenut

Guest
I have a traditional/old world view or take on arms. An arm must be purpose built and used in warfare atleast once in history. Sword, Dirk, Certain Knives, Muskets, Sabres, Dagger, Modern Firearms, Flails, Medieval Mace, Warhammer, Spear, Bow, etc.

I still do not consider defense spray, Tasers, Stun Guns anything but a defense device.

Arms are strictly lethal for the most part. Defense devices not so much.
Interesting... but then there is this...

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/transmitting-std-texas.htm

Transmitting an STD in Texas




In Texas, people who know that they are infected with HIV/AIDS and expose other people to the disease can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or even attempted murder.
-snip-

Assault With a Deadly Weapon

In Texas, a person who knows that he or she is infected with HIV/AIDS and intentionally exposes another person to the disease may be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. A deadly weapon is anything that that can be used to cause death or serious injury.
-snip-
Bold added by me for emphasis....

Oh... and back in the bad old days armies were known to use a trebuchette to toss disease infected bodies over the walls of a city they were trying to conquer. So which was the deadly "weapon"? The trebuchette or the the disease infected body? Or both?

And truth be told fists and feet, and even teeth, are deadly weapons when used for that purpose.

Oddly enough, any weapon that can be used to attack can also be used to defend. Although I must admit I am at a loss as to how HIV/AIDS could be used in a defensive manner.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top