Open carry vs concealed carry-

Shane R said:

When I was a teenager and really learning to shoot handguns, we could go out and have a range session at the Conservation Club and cruise into the main part of town to grab lunch at McDonald's with holstered pistols on our hip and no one thought much of it. 11 miles down the road at the county seat they would have likely soiled their pants and then called the Sheriff's office on us. That was 20 years ago.

As time has gone on, this has become a more sensitive topic. There are rural places where open carry is fine. There are urban places where it's a quick route to a bad day. Is the law substantially different? Not so much. But the community expectations and the enforcement are.

Have you ever noticed that a lot of the open-carry crowd are total douchers? I encountered one a couple of weeks ago at an aviation museum. He had taken his girl-friend there to impress her with his knowledge of WWII aircraft. He had a Glock on his hip, in plain sight. And he was an arrogant prick who considered himself an expert on every airplane on display in that museum: reminded me of the guys who occasionally make the news for carry AR-15s in a 3 point sling while they shop at Kroger or something.

Click to expand...

When I grew up in the '60s and '70s, the guys who lived on farms that drove a pick-up truck to school often had their 30-30 lever-action rifles hanging at the back window inside the cab. No one thought anything about it.

It's the propagandists behind trying to destroy the western Christian nations that hate the idea that Americans are still armed, and that they haven't been able to scrap the U.S. Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. And those behind trying to scrap it really aren't very bright, because everytime they attempt to ban weapons Americans go out and buy more guns just to spite them! Will they ever learn that American's aren't to be fooled with?

Shane R said:

There are rural places where open carry is fine. There are urban places where it's a quick route to a bad day. Is the law substantially different? Not so much. But the community expectations and the enforcement are.\

Click to expand...

Was even back in the day. Used to shoot with a Chinese kid (who grew up in Nashville and sounded like it) who carried a 4" Colt Python .357, while I toted a Ruger Security Six in the same caliber. We both carried them in old school shoulder rigs, which is about as unconcealed as you can get. We had a dump that we claimed as ours where there were tons of potential targets and good backstop for almost 180 degrees. We'd stop at the nearest store for ammo (.357s and .38 specials) and Cokes, and no one gave us a second glance (well, except the ones who wondered who "them Japs with the guns" were). Got 'em out of sight while we were in Nashville, though. THe Metro Pd was considerably less relaxed about that kind of thing than the rural county mounties.

Shane R said:

Have you ever noticed that a lot of the open-carry crowd are total douchers?

Click to expand...

Not to put too fine a point on it, yeah. 'Nuff said.

Unqualified said:

Why not shoot them in the leg for crimes that are not executable.

Click to expand...

Because a guy shot in the leg can still shoot you.

Unqualified said:

That’s why they are mad at cops. They use lethal force for a rebellious teenager running away.

Click to expand...

No, they don't.

Unqualified said:

Love the sinner hate the sin? Do you want justice or mercy? Sure they are no good scumbags. Do they have one chance in hell or do we judge them evil and kill. I’m taking this out as far as it will go because it has some merit. Who’s right us or God. Mercy or erase them off the face of the map. Where is the justification? If some bad guys came and said deny Christ or we’ll kill your family and you are unarmed what are you gonna do? Or if you are armed! Kill them all? Where is the righteousness.

Click to expand...

I know I'm responding to an old post, but the first misconception of this train of thought is that "shoot to wound" is a practical option.

It's not.

First, it's exceedingly harder to shoot an extremity than the torso (center of mass). The torso is much larger and will always be moving more slowly and more predictably than the extremities.

Second, the bullet will almost certainly pass through the extremity with almost no loss of lethality...to strike something or someone beyond.

Third, if the assailant truly is a danger to one's life, shooting them through an extremity will not stop them. Determined assailants are hardly stopped by most single pistol cartridges even when struck in the torso.

If the assailant needs to be shot to be stopped, it's foolish to attempt to "shoot to wound." The only practical option is to aim where one is most certainly to be on target.

Brethren in Christ, do not forget that before Lord Jesus in final sent His disciples on the open road to spread The Gospel, He told those who didn't have a sword to go buy one! (see Luke 22).

That means, God's people have the inalienable right to defend theirselves using arms. It is why the U.S. founders put the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

Then some will say, "But I thought Jesus said to turn the other cheek?" He did, in a particular situation, like you are preaching The Gospel and it offends someone, and they come and slap you on the face.

But if a thief or murderer is coming at you with a knife or gun to try and kill you, you have the God-given right to defend yourself.

And finally, the KJV Old Testament commandment of "Thou shalt not kill", that is about HOMICIDE. What's that? It means pre-meditated MURDER. The KJV translators got it correct in Matthew 19 when Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament in Matthew 19:18. It's "murder" there.

Thus if you have to defend yourself, or a loved one, etc., from a MURDERER, and it means you are forced to kill that MURDERER to defend yourself, then in God's eyes you did not do wrong. Jesus telling His disciples to go buy a sword to protect themselves means He just don't put up with a bunch of evil acts from thieves, murderers, rapists, etc., nor do we have to.