Anti Open Carry Article in Michigan State University Newspaper - Page 2

Anti Open Carry Article in Michigan State University Newspaper

This is a discussion on Anti Open Carry Article in Michigan State University Newspaper within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; All righty then....

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 61
  1. #16
    JD
    JD is offline
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,237
    All righty then.


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array TN_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shelby County TN
    Posts
    11,118
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    That can be argued all day long with no one being able to change the mind of the other. And your quote here was exactly the point of the article. Why does your right to protect yourself trump their right "feel safe". The article didn't trash CC and basically said keep it covered so you don't scare the sheep.
    My point is, the sheep don't need to be scared of me. I carry my gun in a safe level II Blackhawk SERPA holster. They can see it. It is there on my hip, not in my hand pointed at them while they are being told to hand over their belongings. I don't act aggressive and I am polite.

    By seeing me, an ordinary, normal guy with my gun on, I am teaching the sheep that the fact that I have a gun on is not a cause for them to freak out.

    And before you tell me it doesn't work that way, i can tell you that you are wrong if that is the way you feel. I, and many many others here in West Tennessee, open carry every day. I have for several years after moving here. No one, not the sheep nor the atomic (Obama '08 bumper sticker uber-liberal) sheep. I have never had a bad experience with a sheep or uber-liberal, not one person has made an unpleasant comment and it is very, very accepted here. And West Tennessee is the "Liberal" end of this state.

    It works. It works well.
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_)

  3. #18
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,913
    It works. It works well.
    I have yet to see it here. There is a movement to allow it though, but these things start slow and usaully take years to come to be.

    I tend to think that it wouldnt be the issue in normal towns like it might be in the bigger citys. Whatdya think?

    The thrust of the article was on the mindset I commented on. There were a few ideas I found very wrong and I would argue strongly against. Clearly, the guy was anti-gun. But sometimes the anti-gun folks actually do have valid arguments.

    Self Defense,
    What vaild argument are you talking about exactly?
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  4. #19
    Distinguished Member Array P7fanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texan in NWFlorida
    Posts
    1,588

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    Why does your right to protect yourself trump their right "feel safe".

    Maybe it's that 'my right to protect myself' is a God given right. At least that's what our founding fathers believed. I tend to agree.
    So do you think that 'their right to feel safe' trumps 'my right to feel safe'? I don't.
    I might also add that I don't think you'll find the 'right to feel safe' anywhere in the Constitution.
    By the way, I even believe 'athiests' have the right to defend themselves.



    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson

    "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage

    GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,996
    I don't believe you further your cause by rubbing it in the face of those who are fearful of it.
    Perspective. Some have it, some don't. Phobia isn't a perspective. It's (a) lack of info and/or (b) an illness.

    In the end, people generally don't learn to correct their mistaken fears until they see how harmless it truly is. Doesn't mean one needs a nose-rubbing. But it does mean such folk need exposure to the reality. The reality is, upstanding folks are not a threat. Criminals are.

    Why does your right to protect yourself trump their right "feel safe".
    IMO, the right to life and the defense of it absolutely trumps someone's preference to feel safe. Feelings mend. Perspective gets corrected. But death is a one-shot deal. There are not any do-overs.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #21
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,913
    Well said
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  7. #22
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Self Defense,
    What vaild argument are you talking about exactly?
    The men, who belong to no particular group, say they are flexing their Second Amendment rights in a very public way to defy Hastings Police Department Chief Jerry Sarver
    I find this immature and childish. Don't you?

    It appears the men are more concerned with sparking a controversy and provoking a reaction from people than they are about their rights. They don't give specific reasons for being so devoted to carrying their weapons openly in public places. They justify their actions by citing their constitutional rights alone, instead of providing information, like an increase in crime in the area, that would make them feel carrying a gun is necessary.
    I find this argument particularly compelling. And we see examples of this frequently.

    The presence of a man with a gun strapped to his side in a coffee shop isn't only unusual — it's frightening. Seeing anyone besides a police officer carrying a gun in public is a jarring experience and conjures up images of criminals and otherwise dangerous people.
    Yes, some people are scared of armed citizens. It is no one's duty or responsibility to 'educate' those who prefer to live their lives in the manner they choose.

    When I see an armed citizen I pay more attention to that individual. I don't know him from Adam so he is going to be a distraction. Interestingly, many people say the same for police during the many threads concerning traffic stops.


    While Michigan law allows people to carry guns in holsters, a concealed weapons permit is more practical if you're actually looking to carry a gun for protection and not intimidation.
    Another valid argument.

    The group's desire to protect their constitutional rights is hard to condemn but their method of bringing their cause to the forefront is shameful.
    Exactly. Some people simply do not want to see open carry. And when those involved cannnot even artculate the self defense reason for carrying, as the author writes, then it is shameful. Just because something is legal does not mean it is the right thing to do. And to do it simply because it is legal is immature. Consideration of others is a valuable trait.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    I personally am not a fan of open carry, for myself, but that Op-Ed read like it was written by a child, in mindset.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  9. #24
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,913
    I find this immature and childish. Don't you?
    Matter of view.
    I cant argue that it got his attention though. Sometimes to get the point across one must resort to unconventional tactics.

    I find this argument particularly compelling. And we see examples of this frequently.
    Sometimes controversy is what it takes to effect change.

    Yes, some people are scared of armed citizens. It is no one's duty or responsibility to 'educate' those who prefer to live their lives in the manner they choose.
    On the other hand, seeing armed men that act responsibly does educate them whether they understand it or not. The only way that they will ever get over the fear or armed men is to see them.

    When I see an armed citizen I pay more attention to that individual. I don't know him from Adam so he is going to be a distraction. Interestingly, many people say the same for police during the many threads concerning traffic stops.
    Distraction? I guess its a matter of culture. I have been around guns my entire life. I have better things to do that speculate about what an armed man may or may not do. If I do get distracted by the guy wearing the gun, its only long enough for me to see what make and model of gun he is carrying.

    While Michigan law allows people to carry guns in holsters, a concealed weapons permit is more practical if you're actually looking to carry a gun for protection and not intimidation

    Another valid argument
    I don't see it as such. I think that the author is making an assumption, and a wrong one at that. I will agree that concealed carry is more practical from a tactical point of view, but to say that someone open carrys for intimidation purposes is pure conjecture on the authors part. Although he may feel that way, fact of the matter is, the more you open carry, like concealed carry, the less of an issue it becomes. I open carry occasionally and I sure don't do it to intimidate anyone. Lets also not forget that open carry is a perfectly legal thing to do there. Its not like they are breaking any laws or anything.

    The group's desire to protect their constitutional rights is hard to condemn but their method of bringing their cause to the forefront is shameful.

    Shameful? Not hardly. They are doing exactly what it takes to get the point across. They are using it to stimulate the thought process for people that are unaware or uncertain about the whole idea. Eventually, it will work. If you want to change things, you have to rattle brains to get the point across. The fact that these guys had a reporter comment on it in an article is proof that it is working.

    Exactly. Some people simply do not want to see open carry.
    Many of those same people don't want concealed carry either.

    And when those involved cannot even articulate the self defense reason for carrying, as the author writes, then it is shameful.
    Perhaps they felt that since it was legal, it didn't need articulating. Perhaps they didn't want to wast time or effort on someone that they thought was anti-gun. It is possible that they thought that it had already been articulated in the Legislative sessions of their state and needed no more justification.

    Just because something is legal does not mean it is the right thing to do. And to do it simply because it is legal is immature.
    The state found that it was the right thing to do when they allowed it to become law. Therefore, any other opinion is moot and irreverent. Immature? Not even close. It takes a certain amount of courage to act when it is not a popular thing to do.

    Consideration of others is a valuable trait
    Yes it is.
    The ability to be able to respond to a deadly threat with equal or overwhelming force to in which to win a confrontation is a valuable trait. Possibly saving the lives of those that don't understand personal responsibility for their own defense or defense of their loved ones is a valuable trait.

    The most valuable trait by far, is educating someone and helping to erase the ignorance of a certain subject in their lives. I have been thanked many times by those that understood all of a sudden because some life changing event "woke" them up. They had the luxury of living though some negative encounters. Some people are not afforded that luxury. I firmly believe the saying, "catch a man a fish and he can eat for a day, teach him to catch a fish and he can eat for a lifetime".

    What we are discussing here could be the difference between living or dieing for some people. If a bunch of guys want to open carry in a restaurant to get the point across, and just a few people realize that its not the gun but the mindset, then I applaud their efforts for having the courage and the wisdom to advance that cause. Its not about wearing a gun, its about being afforded the dignity to have the means to stand and fight, rather than cower down and be virtually guaranteed a bad outcome, like most of the citizens of the world must do when confronted by a lunatic, whether it be an individual, a band of thugs, or even a Dictator and his army.

    Being timid or even refusing to do something because someone or some group may be offended it NOT the way to advance a cause.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  10. #25
    Senior Member Array Al Lowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Mason, MI, USA
    Posts
    574
    Does anyone know where this "right to feel safe" came from? I don't see it in the Constitution anywhere. ;)

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Al Lowe View Post
    Does anyone know where this "right to feel safe" came from? I don't see it in the Constitution anywhere. ;)
    It's a complete fabrication.

    In the not too distant past, before wussification took hold, before the entitlement mindset, and before the thought that the government will "save" us, there once was the thought it was one's supreme responsibility to take care of one's own ... self, family, townsfolk. In many places, this has become heretical thought, sadly.

    I think Ayn Rand said it best (in Atlas Shrugged), when she suggests that the moochers in fact want death and destruction. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," which ultimately leads to all things of value being in the crosshairs of those with the need. Hogwash. With so many indicators supporting this thought, I'm inclined to agree.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #27
    762
    762 is offline
    Senior Member Array 762's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    720
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    I personally am not a fan of open carry, for myself, but that Op-Ed read like it was written by a child, in mindset.

    - Janq
    aren't most anti-gun/lib op-eds like this?

    i worked for my college newspaper between 2001 and 2003...the op-eds that were written were usually regurgitated rants from some lib professor.
    Let's Roll - Todd Beamer

    MOΛΩN ΛABÉ

  13. #28
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Matter of view.
    I cant argue that it got his attention though. Sometimes to get the point across one must resort to unconventional tactics.
    And what point is that? Their stated goal was to defy the sheriff. What they did get across with their stunt is negative publicity for gun owners.

    Sometimes controversy is what it takes to effect change.
    Open carry is already legal there! It is not as if they went to Illinois and pulled the same stunt. At least then I would respect their effort to highlight the cause of gun owners. A Rosa Parks moment. This behavior has nothing to do with changing anything. It is to flaunt their guns and draw negative publicity of the public.

    I remember the recent incident in PA where the final result was change. The restaurant owner put up a no guns allowed sign.

    On the other hand, seeing armed men that act responsibly does educate them whether they understand it or not. The only way that they will ever get over the fear or armed men is to see them.
    I disagree that they are acing responsibly. Particpating in a radical demostration to defy a sheriff, in a place where open carry is legal can only draw negative attention.

    What right is there to force someone else to agree with your view? That is the point of the author's article. I have no problem with the 'right' of two men holding hands and kissing. I don't want to be educated about their 'right' and having my children see that behavior.

    Distraction? I guess its a matter of culture. I have been around guns my entire life. I have better things to do that speculate about what an armed man may or may not do. If I do get distracted by the guy wearing the gun, its only long enough for me to see what make and model of gun he is carrying.
    So, five gang members approach from one side, all carrying guns, and five elderly women with walkers are approaching on the other, who would atarct your attention? I thought we preached situational awareness. How can the gang member be ignored?

    While Michigan law allows people to carry guns in holsters, a concealed weapons permit is more practical if you're actually looking to carry a gun for protection and not intimidation


    I don't see it as such. I think that the author is making an assumption, and a wrong one at that. I will agree that concealed carry is more practical from a tactical point of view, but to say that someone open carrys for intimidation purposes is pure conjecture on the authors part. Although he may feel that way, fact of the matter is, the more you open carry, like concealed carry, the less of an issue it becomes. I open carry occasionally and I sure don't do it to intimidate anyone.
    Intimidation is the result of the other person. No matter how often one carries openly, it will not affect the intimidation factor. Another poster here posited the idea that open carry may deter crime. I would point out that is an example of intimidation. You may want to intimidate a certain class of people but you cannot control who is going to be intimidated.

    I think the intimidation comment was not in line with his main point and demonstrated a clear anti-gun bias. The fact is that if people feel the need to inject their views on others they should at least be able to explain the personal protection aspect of carrying a gun, to defend oneself and one's family, rather than carrying to make a scene.


    The group's desire to protect their constitutional rights is hard to condemn but their method of bringing their cause to the forefront is shameful.

    Shameful? Not hardly. They are doing exactly what it takes to get the point across. They are using it to stimulate the thought process for people that are unaware or uncertain about the whole idea. Eventually, it will work. If you want to change things, you have to rattle brains to get the point across. The fact that these guys had a reporter comment on it in an article is proof that it is working.
    I will reiterate. Open carry is already legal there. What were they trying to change? Their point by their own admission was to defy the sheriff, which is chldish and immature.

    It takes a certain amount of courage to act when it is not a popular thing to do.
    Their demonstration against something that is already legal is pointless and requires no courage whatsoever. Moreover, they were unable to articulate for a widespread circulation why we carry a gun: to protect ourselves. They did not mention soaring crime rates, home invasions, muggings, car jackings...They didn't even attempt to educate the people.

    The ability to be able to respond to a deadly threat with equal or overwhelming force to in which to win a confrontation is a valuable trait. Possibly saving the lives of those that don't understand personal responsibility for their own defense or defense of their loved ones is a valuable trait.
    Of course.

    The most valuable trait by far, is educating someone and helping to erase the ignorance of a certain subject in their lives. I have been thanked many times by those that understood all of a sudden because some life changing event "woke" them up. They had the luxury of living though some negative encounters. Some people are not afforded that luxury. I firmly believe the saying, "catch a man a fish and he can eat for a day, teach him to catch a fish and he can eat for a lifetime".
    Yes, but only if he wants to be taught. Forcing yourself on someone is simply rude. Annoying people and frightening them is not an example of mature behavior, no matter the motivation. If you want to educate the pubic then you should arrange programs in schools, teach classes to willing participants. That would make a positive impact on the community. These open carry stunts simply anger the public and draw negative attention.

    If someone beleives open carry is the best mode for their own protection then that is what they should do. But to arrange demonstrations to flaunt open carry is not the right way to get people on our side. The result is exactly the opposite.

    What we are discussing here could be the difference between living or dieing for some people. If a bunch of guys want to open carry in a restaurant to get the point across, and just a few people realize that its not the gun but the mindset, then I applaud their efforts for having the courage and the wisdom to advance that cause.
    No, we are not discussing that at all. We are discussing a stunt pulled to draw attention to the fact that a group of people wanted to defy the sheriff. Forcing your views on someone else is patently offensive.

    Being timid or even refusing to do something because someone or some group may be offended it NOT the way to advance a cause.
    I think people should mind their own business. Going out of the way to offend people simply because it is legal will not psotively promote gun rights.

  14. #29
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,913
    The men, who belong to no particular group, say they are flexing their Second Amendment rights in a very public way to defy Hastings Police Department Chief Jerry Sarver, who they say wants to stifle their right to bear arms
    An anti gun police chief wants to stifle a something that is legal because he doesn't like it. Sound familiar ?

    I think people should mind their own business. Going out of the way to offend people simply because it is legal will not positively promote gun rights.
    The bottom line is this.
    If am engaging in a legal activity, I don't really care what someone thinks. If they are offended then they can try to change it like the rest of us. Ted Kennedy thinks that all guns should be outlawed. Am I to respect the wishes of a wacko senator because he is offended that I have a means of protection and just disregard the fact that it's legal?

    Ain't happening. You got to know where to draw the line. The Police chief in question offended those men by making some rash statements. Why is OK to offend them, but if they counter some are offended?

    It doesn't make sense, but much of what liberals think dont.
    Its always the same isn't it?You can offend me and it OK, but its wrong if I offend you.

    Same ole tired liberal thought process.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array grady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Near St. Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    What right is there to force someone else to agree with your view?
    That is exactly what those who don't agree with OC, even though OC is legal, are trying to do: force someone else to agree with their view that OC should not be allowed, or that there should be a justifiable reason for doing it.

    Who decides what is justifiable? The ones cowering in fear at the sight of a gun? If it's legal, I don't need to justify my actions to anyone. Those who are violently opposed to OC won't change their mind, so why should I waste my time trying to convince them that my reasons are good enough? I've got better things in life to do.

    In the referenced incident, OC is legal. If someone doesn't like it, let them try to change the laws rather than complain about law-abiding citizens doing something that is legal.

    We don't need a bunch of motive-police running around checking our motives to see if they fit the motive-police/pc standards. If our actions are legal, that is enough.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. University president opposes open carry law on campus
    By cyberdogg in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 11th, 2011, 11:29 PM
  2. IKEA is Anti-Concealed Carry and Open Carry Store and presumed anti-RTBA
    By mikestilly in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: February 8th, 2010, 04:43 PM
  3. HUGE article in Denver newspaper, front page, concealed carry
    By Sticks in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: May 6th, 2008, 01:43 AM
  4. My Reponse to an Anti Article in the UK University Newspaper.
    By SammyIamToday in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: February 21st, 2008, 08:39 AM
  5. Miami University Newspaper and CCW
    By ellerblr in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 6th, 2007, 08:05 AM

Search tags for this page

anti open carry articles
,
anti open carry businesses in michigan
,
can i open carry on a atv in mich
,
can you carry a gun in a atv in michigan
,
can you open carry at michigan state university
,
can you open carry at msu
,

michigan open carry gun law

,
michigan open carry university
,
michigan state university carry firearms
,

michigan state university open carry

,
michigan state university open carry laws
,

open carry in michigan state parks

,
open carry on atv in mi
,
open carry on atv in michigan
,
what laws bans guns from campus in michigan and open carry
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors