Right to chose

I’m all for freedom of choice and it’s interesting to me the debate over open carry is sometimes actually framed in those words in the media. But then this is an Oklahoma newspaper.

Sometime I’ll have to spend an hour or three and collect my thought on open carry for a post. I’m all for it but I do worry about scaring the sheeple and it backfiring on us.


4 thoughts on “Right to chose

  1. I have a lot of long time ties to law enforcement, me, my brother, my brother in law, his wife, my son, his fiance, all are or were in the gun and badge business in one form or another…

    As far as I am concerned, and the general consensus among our little clique is that we’d a hell of a lot rather KNOW the guy has a pistol on his hip as opposed to having to wonder and hope that if it’s not really a bad guy, it’s a CHL holder that has enough sense to know he’s not a cop, not an expert on weapons, tactics, strategy, criminal justice or a myriad of things that for some reason seems to fall into the heads of so many CHL holders…

    Not denigrating ALL CHL holders, not in any way, but damn, I have had some that tried to explain the gun laws of the USA, Texas and many other areas to me, and tell me ALL the stuff I needed to know, and then I asked them, “Where did YOU get your vast knowledge?”

    Them: “Oh, I have a CHL!!”

    Me: “Oh… ” As I walk away LMAO they are wondering why, and once in a while I’ll tell em…

    They rarely like the answer, but I rarely suffer idiots well.

  2. Joe,
    The sheeple need to be scared, perhaps a few will wake up to what is happening in this country.

  3. The problem never was the guns or licenses though; it’s the people holding them. Guns don’t kill people, etc. That being said, I’d far prefer someone to open carry than to exercise their CHL. At least then it’s one less unknown variable when assessing a situation.

  4. A good case can be made that, as a tactic, it makes sense to conceal. The argument states that, knowing a large number of guns are “out there” but not knowing exactly where, the predators have reason to worry, but can’t identify their threats. You walk through a crowd of people and you know many of them are carrying, but you have no idea which ones. The theory is that this deterrent effect benefits the armed and unarmed alike. Examples of this concept in action are well-known.

    Texas; I get your point and in many cases I concur, but I’ve also known several cops who were very ignorant (for lack of a better word) about guns and their capabilities. I knew one import-a-cop from California who swore blind that his .45 ACP would shoot through an engine block. Obviously he never shot steel targets, never experimented, and felt comfortable making bold assertions with nothing to support them. There are other examples. Some cops are “gun guys” and others simply are not. They shoot to qualify and that’s it. Knowledge of gun laws is similar– I had a sheriff’s deputy talking right to my face who had never heard of the NFA as I was being fingerprinted for transfer of a DD. He assumed I was applying for a job at the BATF and when I told hin, “No, it’s for an NFA weapons transfer” he clammed up. Nothing like, “Interesting– What are you getting?” nothing. Just that look on his face of “I don’t what the fuck he’s talking about, so I’ll shut up and get this over with”. Not even a peep. Some of what I hear as common cop gun knowledge seems to have been culled from Hollywood. When I see a gaggle of them walking through New Orleans, dressed paramilitary style, carrying M4s in tight formation in the middle of the street, confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens, I see a gang– a gang that knows zero about tactics, and nothing about the constitution to which they are sworn. It goes both ways; some cops are our dear friends and some I see as no different from common thugs. Which are you?

Comments are closed.