It would be nice if he would respond on his own behalf.
He's a troll.
I haven't really decided if he's an anti, part of the Bloomberg et all machine, or just backwards/luddite.
I also figure he started this thread, and incites other arguments on the board, to try to gather information about how pro-gun people view the situation and to try to get insight into possible legal challenges to his schemes.
I fully expect, if his California scheme goes as he desires, that we would end up seeing some kind of similar legal challenge in Illinois. Bloomberg is all about trying to restrict and reverse the tide of concealed carry liberalization across the country. This is a very viable long term strategy to do just that.
It's not about CC vs OC, it's about making carry so unviable that almost no one does so. Imagine a future where open carry is the only carry option, and anyone who open carries gets swatted by antifa types. If you read leftists on social media, the groundwork is already being laid for that.
Gamma, I REALLY appreciate you trying to help by translating your interpretation of his goals and objectives. A lot of others have offered their ideas as well. However again, I am trying to get Mr. Nichols to come clean.
While I've read this thread, and a number of others more times that I'd really care to, I do fully understand he as a preference for OC. That is part clear.
I also know the way the greater Pro-2A community, including myself, views the right to keep and bear arms means, OC AND CC. Recent decisions have stated that keep and bear arms also means outside of the home. We get all that.
The VERY specific point I'm getting at is, fine he prefers CC - That's cool. And, I'd even go as far as to say that he feels OC is getting marginalized by CC. But, does his dislike go to the level that he would actually try to undermine CC, if he felt that would improve his case for OC? And worse, even take it one step further in sabotaging both in favor of less overall carry rights? That is the $64K question.
I still cannot see enough to actually accuse him of the later, as some have. However, the reach is logical. While it's amusing to entertain the romantic visions of "honorable carry" and "cowardly scoundrels" from the wild west days, the fact is, there has been a total role reversal between concealed carry and open carry as viewed by the society of today. So, while I have no doubt he loves to play dress up with his fancy cowboy outfits and six shooters, is he really that determined to go mutually assured destruction and screw us all over, if he can't get his way?
His stated objective of this is thread was, is CC a 2A right? We have all asked, why is there a need to parse out CC vs OC? He can pose the question anyway he wants. One of us can even flip it around, and ask is OC a 2A right? But who cares? The question should be is "CARRY a 2A Right?" What is the benefit of parsing them out against each other. Why play into his hand, if indeed his end game is to sink both?
So there, Mr. Nichols, with all due respect, we know you are a troll - That point is clear. I just wonder if you are an honorable 2A supporter with a flair for fringed leather, stamped tin, and ivory grips, or are you a cowardly scoundrel? You have to know by now, you are not well regarded by much of anyone in the Pro-2A circles, and I'd like to give you the opportunity to clarify your position in the event your critics have it all wrong. If you want to clear the air, the podium is all yours...