Joined
·
350 Posts
What is up with the seemingly double standard of opinions on OC when it comes to handguns and rifles? OCing a handgun is "just exercising your rights," or "not a big deal" yet OCing a rifle is either "a political statement," or "just plain stupid." What gives? I fail to see how one can be something positive but the other is negative, they both are guns, both are semi-automatic, and in many cases can have the same magazine capacity.
I understand rifles are a bit more... overt but so what? If someone was walking the street with an AR-15/AK-47 on their back I am sure they would get a lot more attention than the Glock OCer but what does that have to do with the reason they carry? Sure, maybe they would be fine with just a handgun but why is it any of our place to tell them what to carry? We'd never tell another carrier that they should carry brand X instead of their beloved brand Y, because that's a personal choice. I see OCing a rifle the same way, its up to them and it falls under the same 2A.
The only reason I could come up with is that "it makes us look evil to antis." If that's the case, I find that a lame excuse. Compromising on your own beliefs and values because of what "the others" will think of you? These are guns and our right to bear arms, not illegal drug use. Would you tell someone here, "well maybe you should carry a G26 instead of a G17 so the antis have a harder time spotting them"?
Honestly, I feel that antis will remain antis until they encounter an unfortunate situation and "come to Jesus." Until then, I see no point in appeasing them because there's always something else they'll whine about. I don't think any of us should compromise our 2A rights simply because "what they may think." And if you have no problem with OC (doesn't mean you have to practice it instead of CC), you should have no problem with what they decide to OC.
To put it shortly, I personally don't think I'd OC a rifle but I'd think nothing of it if someone else did.
I understand rifles are a bit more... overt but so what? If someone was walking the street with an AR-15/AK-47 on their back I am sure they would get a lot more attention than the Glock OCer but what does that have to do with the reason they carry? Sure, maybe they would be fine with just a handgun but why is it any of our place to tell them what to carry? We'd never tell another carrier that they should carry brand X instead of their beloved brand Y, because that's a personal choice. I see OCing a rifle the same way, its up to them and it falls under the same 2A.
The only reason I could come up with is that "it makes us look evil to antis." If that's the case, I find that a lame excuse. Compromising on your own beliefs and values because of what "the others" will think of you? These are guns and our right to bear arms, not illegal drug use. Would you tell someone here, "well maybe you should carry a G26 instead of a G17 so the antis have a harder time spotting them"?
Honestly, I feel that antis will remain antis until they encounter an unfortunate situation and "come to Jesus." Until then, I see no point in appeasing them because there's always something else they'll whine about. I don't think any of us should compromise our 2A rights simply because "what they may think." And if you have no problem with OC (doesn't mean you have to practice it instead of CC), you should have no problem with what they decide to OC.
To put it shortly, I personally don't think I'd OC a rifle but I'd think nothing of it if someone else did.