11

Open Carry vs. Racism

Posted by nsnelson 3 years, 9 months ago to Legislation
115 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I've been contemplating a parallel between some new gun debates and Rand's essay on Racism. Texas passed new legislation to allow licensed open carry of handguns. For years now, I have been licensed to carry concealed wherever permitted. I do not intend to open carry, but I support the liberty to choose whether one carries concealed, openly, or not at all. But the ignorance surrounding this new legislation is astounding. The legislators who passed it displayed irrationality and fear-mongering (I watched them debate the bill). The opponents and local media are increasing the spread of ignorance and fear. But I'm particularly disappointed with average people who supported the legislation.

I have been a member of two Facebook groups: Open Carry Texas, and Texas Carry. Both made amazing strides in getting this legislation passed, even overcoming opposition by the NRA. But now roughly half of the group members are upset that so many local stores (e.g., grocery stores) are posting signs legally prohibiting open carry on their premises. Many open carry supporters are now saying this is a violation of their second amendment rights, and now they want to pursue legislation that requires these stores to allow open carry.

Never mind that the 2A is a limit on the Government, not on private businesses. Never mind that private property rights are the foundation of liberty, and even of our right of self-defense (and the tools of self-defense). Some of these people are making the comparison between the bakers (etc.) who have been sued for refusing certain products to certain homosexual events, saying that stores should not be allowed to discriminate against those who want to exercise their second amendment rights. That's right: they want to make open carriers a protected class.

The other half of the group members (myself included) seem to recognize the importance of private property rights. But it is Facebook, the land of misinformation, of not addressing arguments, of anonymous name-calling, and of never convincing anyone. It's just frustrating to watch, and I needed to share this with people who understand.

Anyway, it reminded me of Rand's treatment of racism. What she said very aptly applies to this debate: some on the pro-gun side started by appealing to individual rights in order to be allowed to open carry, now they want to violate the rights of private business owners.

“One of the worst contradictions, in this context, is the stand of many so-called ‘conservatives’ (not confined exclusively to the South) who claim to be defenders of freedom, of capitalism, of property rights, of the Constitution, yet who advocate racism at the same time. They do not seem to possess enough concern with principles to realize that they are cutting the ground from under their own feet. Men who deny individual rights cannot claim, defend or uphold any rights whatsoever.”

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 3 years, 9 months ago
    First they came for the privately owned gold, and I did not speak out—
    Because I had no gold.

    Then they came for the Separatists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Separatist.

    Then they came for the Branch Davidians, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Branch Davidian.

    Then they came for the registered gun owners, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a registered gun owner.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 3 years, 9 months ago
      Thats exactly how we lose our freedom. I would never register a gun I owned. I dont want anyone to know what I have, least of all the government.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 3 years, 9 months ago
        As long as you buy used from an individual who doesn't have to legally report the sale by doing a background check that is true.
        I don't trust any government agency not to misuse the background check information and build a database of gun buyers.
        Wonder how many millions of "registered" gun owners are in that database?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dmshuler 3 years, 9 months ago
    This is one of the most interesting contradictions in the debate about "individual rights," I think. Thanks for providing some mental chewing gum for me today. It seems to me that our government has gotten so far outside of the powers delegated to it by the Constitution that the "individual" has become a group instead. (I think Abaco nailed that.) It's sad.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  jlc 3 years, 9 months ago
      Point for "mental chewing gum".

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by johnpe1 3 years, 9 months ago
        I believe that it was Frank Lloyd Wright who said that
        television was "chewing gum for the eyes." -- j
        .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  jlc 3 years, 9 months ago
          Well, I dodge that bullet...have not had TV for about 25 years. Interesting: 3 people live on my property; 5 dogs, 6 chickens, one sheep. No TV.

          Jan
          (But a number of computers)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by johnpe1 3 years, 9 months ago
            I learned more from a youtube video about operating
            a ham handy-talkie (15 minutes) than from hours of
            football, lately.
            and, of course, the latter arrived on tv. -- j
            .
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
              I have a new marine band VHF...GMDSS, GPS plug in and everything. The old one burned out it's transmitter. No ICOM this time Cobra. MR F45D. Your ham handhelds do satellite? I'm still running an m600 ICOM with key for that.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Steven-Wells 3 years, 9 months ago
            [Yes, this diverges from the discussion of open and closed carry firearms, but I really cannot ignore the bizarre.]
            Perhaps the five dogs, six chickens, and one sheep set the art and knowledge acquisition policy through threats of violence. I cannot imagine three persons who would ignore by choice what is arguably the most effective and powerful source of information and entertainment in the past quarter century, indeed the past half century and more. While you (and even I) might argue that much, even most, of what is on TV is crap, there have been and continue to be excellent programs of great artistic merit, informational content, entertainment, and positive cultural values.
            I would be embarrassed to say I had no television for 25 years, and more so to repeat it a second time, just as I would be embarrassed to say I viewed no hardcopy printed matter, regardless that most of what is in print is trash unfit for lining a parrot cage. The key is to use principles, intellect, and sound judgment to quickly distinguish the valuable from the junk, and revel in the delights of the valuable programs.
            Most persons consider a no-TV environment akin to a padded safe room stocked with aluminum foil anti-radio-wave hats. Though healthy self-esteem is not derived from the opinions of others, one should at least be aware of the social consequences of proudly proclaiming a stance against all TV.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  jlc 3 years, 9 months ago
              Actually, 'no TV' is not uncommon amongst geeks. I can obtain all of the information I want, selectively, via a computer. Entertainment is also available - if there is any that I want to see.

              The most common response from strangers to my mentioning that I do not have a TV is, "Good for you!" Apparently your positive image of that medium is not shared by many people who themselves posses one. Insofar as a fear that someone will consider that I am on the short list for a tinfoil hat due to this 'idiosyncrasy' - they are welcome to that opinion. One of the reasons I am forthright about saying that I have no TV is to encourage non-conformity: One need not have a TV in order to have a reasonable status in modern society.

              I would like to thank you for the extremely diverting image of the critters on my property exerting not just an influence, but one via "threats of violence". This has given me a vision of the hens hurling their eggs at me; the dogs march in front of the house, carrying placards that threaten a strike. I am finding this a delightful fantasy.

              Jan, smiling
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Steven-Wells 3 years, 9 months ago
                Non-conformism is almost its own form of conformity here at Galt's Gulch. According to Time Magazine's reporting (December 2014) of Nielsen numbers, 2.8% of American households don't have a TV, so that is indeed non-conformist.

                I have a TV that is on more often than not, with hundreds of channels available, but I only watch/listen to a very limited subset. Very worthwhile content often appears that is not available via a computer or purchasable media, for example, on Turner Classic Movies. I also enjoy the nonce entertainments on (what purports to be) news channels. I need no computer searches to be presented with such unusual treats as Britain's Prince Charles delivering a weather forecast, or during recent alleged threats to school systems, a newscaster reporting with an unintended spoonerism, "the creats were not thredible."

                Finally, the Romans worked with a lot of tin, so do you think they coined the "tinfoil" hat terminology? I doubt most modern folks have ever met tin in foil form, but since metallic aluminum became plentiful starting in 1886, I suggest that aluminum should be the default for the foil hat aphorism.

                Your sheep probably comments to this whole thread with, "Bah!"
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  jlc 3 years, 9 months ago
                  That was a fun way to begin a morning, SW. I looked up the etymology (but not the entomology) of "tinfoil hat" and found that it dates to a story "Tissue Culture King" by Huxley in 1927. Wiki has a delightful article on it, including an experiment by MIT students: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foi....

                  If my sheep says "Bah" then that word probably translates to some version of "Food"; a very focused animal.

                  I hypothesize that you are part of a vast governmental program that is trying to force me to use "aluminum hat" instead of the traditional "tinfoil hat". I am not paranoid...these things exist...Wait! What is that?!

                  Jan
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Steven-Wells 3 years, 9 months ago
                    Hi Jan. I had heard of that Huxley title by the time I graduated from MIT with a degree in physics [for real!]

                    So how about some real paranoid behavior?!
                    In my home town in New Jersey, a paranoid guy lived on the main street and made his foil-hat status explicitly clear. He had placed huge signs on the front of his house that were so bizarrely memorable, I can still quote them exactly. "Eight forms of torture, they can read my mind." "Electronic transmitter in brain." "Heat from body powers the device." A foil hat would have prevented signal leakage out instead of the "normal" incoming mind control.

                    Less visible, but more audible, was an odd fellow who incessantly wandered around the local department store where I worked as a teen. One time, I rang up a package of underwear for him while he repeatedly muttered his standard screed against "alcoholic atheists and communists." I told him the price was $3.59. He handed me $5 proclaiming, "The men go down in ships!" I gave him his change (one each of penny, nickel, dime, quarter, and dollar.) He left with his merchandise, warning, "Don't touch that! They'll cut off your fingers. Alcoholic atheists and communists!"

                    Clearly, those guys had crossed the too non-conformist line.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  jlc 3 years, 9 months ago
                      You evidently attract some characters! I would like to think that there is a qualitative difference between 'nonconformist' and 'nutty as a fruitcake'...but one is least able to judge ones own condition. Perhaps I am just fooling myself.

                      I suppose the only reassurance I have against a totally loonie label is that I have many intelligent friends who are quite forthright about their opinions when they think I am incorrect. They are courteous, though...so...hmmm.

                      Good stories. Odd that you remember the price and the denominations of the change.

                      Jan
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Steven-Wells 3 years, 9 months ago
                        The clothing department purchase was my only personal interaction with that nutcase, though I had heard his short repertoire of non-stop raving many times as he wandered around the store.
                        I remember his purchase amount because it was $3.59, the magic change number. (New Jersey did not have sales tax on clothing.) The change for that amount is one of each of the commonly circulating money, which excludes the (then) very rarely seen 50¢ coin and $2 bill. Change from $4 is one each of a penny, nickel, dime, and quarter. Add one of each next bill up for the next higher denomination:
                        $4 gets change as 1¢ + 5¢ +10¢ +25¢
                        $5 gets change as 1¢ + 5¢ +10¢ +25¢ +$1
                        $10 gets change as 1¢ + 5¢ +10¢ +25¢ +$1 +$5
                        $20 gets change as 1¢ + 5¢ +10¢ +25¢ +$1 +$5 +$10
                        Can you guess that I have a long history of playing with numbers? Back then, I could spit out more than 100 decimal places of pi with no effort. (Seems that I still can!)

                        I keep an envelope in a dresser drawer containing $144.19 as a special set that I call Obama Money, because it's Change you can't believe in.
                        Bills = 1×$50 + 4×$20 + 1×$5 + 4×$2 and Coins = 1×50¢ + 1×25¢ + 4×10¢ + 4×1¢.
                        That set can't make even change of any currently circulating American coin or bill.
                        Need change to buy a snack from a machine? Don't expect it from the Obama Money.
                        No even change for any of a nickel, dime, quarter, half, Dollar, Two, Five, Ten, Twenty, Fifty, or Hundred.
                        I don't include larger bills because nothing above a $100 circulates any more. (Long ago I got to hold a $500 and a $1,000 with Presidents McKinley and Cleveland, respectively. Those were fun.)
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  jlc 3 years, 9 months ago
                          That is fun. I wish I had your jolly relationship with numbers. It was my lack of comfort with numbers that inclined me towards a bio degree - I love science, but find numbers a bit baffling. (I memorized well enough to pass Calculus; I had a prof who was an incredible teacher, so I do actually understand some of the basis for Calculus, but I can't work with it worth a darn.)

                          Jan
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gilmorehome 3 years, 9 months ago
    Vote with you pocket book. First, don't go into any place public or private that does not respect individual rights, and then let them know that they are no longer your shopping vendor. Support the enterprises that share and respect your individual rights! Happy New Year 2016 Everyone : )
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DavidRawe 3 years, 9 months ago
    If a person open carries yes it is a visual deterent, but also has its own set of risks. I prefer conceal because a potential perp will never know if folks are armed or not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
      I am not opposed to open carry for two reasons.
      One reason is unselfish and the other is very selfish.
      The unselfish reason is that I believe anyone who is not a convicted felon or a mental case should have the freedom to open carry.
      The very selfish reason is that the open carry person will be the first target, allowing me time to pull my pocket pistol.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
        True. If another person is open carrying, and if that makes them the first target, that means you are not the first target. So I don't understand why some people raise this as an argument against making open carry legal. You are correct: it is a good selfish reason to want open carry.

        Second, if open carrying does make you the first target, why do law enforcement officers open carry? If the argument against open carry is so strong, it also applies to law enforcement.

        Third, law enforcement does open carry because it does act as a deterrent. Most criminals prefer weak (and unarmed) victims. Most thieves, for example, are not looking for a gun fight. There are documented cases where criminals intended to rob a store, walked in and saw people open carrying, so they left and went to rob another store instead. Open carry (with or without a uniform) is sometimes a deterrent.

        Fourth, even when it is not enough of a deterrent, law enforcement officers open carry because that allows a faster draw than concealed carry. There are fewer layers of clothing to dig through or for it to get caught on.

        I do and will prefer to conceal carry, mainly because I just don't want to deal with the social issues at this time. Tactics are not my primary concern; but I do see pros and cons of open carry.

        Your "unselfish reason" actually should be selfish. Liberty for all means liberty for me.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
          There are pros and cons to all kids of self-defense methods.
          I've practiced some with a concealed carry drawing technique with a chambered round.
          I draw with my right hand while shucking off the pocket holster with my left hand. My right hand is still coming up while I thumb down the safety, take quick aim and shoot.
          I also have the confidence that comes with NRA qualifying with a hand gun 21 times.
          Not to mention some target practice at this or that range. .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Steven-Wells 3 years, 9 months ago
        I consider your analysis of the open carry person flawed. If I were to pick a "first target" to attack or rob, it would not be someone openly carrying a firearm. That would be an open invitation to getting shot.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
          Scenarios vary. A terrorist or a bank robber would first want to take out anyone visibly carrying a weapon.
          All alone with a gun on your hip will not prevent someone shooting you in the back.
          Heck, someone may stab an open carry person in the back to steal the displayed and thus coveted pistol.
          I used to be a corrections officer at a maximum security prison for 21 years. Prison guards working inside closely with inmates (in places that are legally described as a "criminal environment") are allowed to carry a baton, pepper spray and/or a taser but never a firearm.
          Why? Because at any given time, several inmates can overwhelm an officer and take his gun, that a lethal weapon.
          Carrying a concealed weapon does not mean I could be gunned down to be robbed while loading groceries in a car.
          But odds strongly have it that a mugger will instead use a gun to intimidate a victim into handing over a wallet.
          Such a face-to-face scenario shall provide me with the option of pulling a pocket pistol holstered in leather that kinda looks like a wallet or handing over my real wallet and then pulling my pistol.
          Mugged from behind? I just may wind up deprived of my concealed gun, my wallet and the cell to call 911 with.
          That's why I try to be always aware of my surroundings. Being a prison guard for two decades provided good training for that.
          That still does not mean I can't be ambushed.
          Old dino is only human and a senior citizen at that.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Steven-Wells 3 years, 9 months ago
            In a prison or large threat environment, your points are quite valid. In the lone mugger environment, perhaps less so with a perpetrator's frontal assault. All that changes in a normal city/suburban environment with several (or many!) open carry citizens present. Where I live in Californicated, open carry is not an option, and qualifying for concealed carry is an arduous process. Only criminals are safe.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
              +1 for "Californicated."
              I would not mind seeing a lot of open carries around me.
              Never have. Just a rare one person,
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Steven-Wells 3 years, 9 months ago
                We need to be better prepared. I recently purchased a box of the humorous but real Hornady Zombie Max 45 ACP—the box suggests, "Just in case".
                See for example: http://www.midwayusa.com/product/9664...
                Product information says, "You never know when the impending zombie apocalypse will begin ... And remember, don't forget the double tap!!"
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
                  That was ammo that I had in a .45 the last time I was a bank guard!
                  No one else the wiser, I was ready for anything that walked in. Ha! Ha!
                  That was back during semi-retired 2012. I became fully retired on my Bama Dept. of Corrections pension November, 2013. .
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
            I am not a psychologist; however, wouldn't it make sense for a mugger or would be bank robber to postpone his act or choose a different target than taking a chance with an open carry individual? (who may have a backup weapon).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
              I'm psychologically more comfortable with a concealed weapon than ogled from all around for being the only person in a room full of people with a pistol on my hip.
              There's that comfort factor too.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
                I just want the element of surprise
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
                  Criminals like the element of surprise too. And they look for disarmed victims. Look like a victim, become a victim.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
                    Bank Robbery in the old Panama Canal Zone. Most people sort of froze the dude had an hand grenade. Finally one soldier walked over took it away from him and smacked him down with it. As he explained later not only was it a dummy it was still painted blue.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
                  Yeah, there's also that.
                  My pistol is kept in a pocket holster that can be easily mistaken for a wallet.
                  That I carry in my right front pocket where I used to carry my wallet.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
                    Where's your wallet? Left front pocket?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
                      Yep.
                      I carried in in my right back pocket up until 1972 when I read in a newspaper that location is an easy target for pickpockets. The year is easy to recall.
                      That wallet was Summer 1973 in my right front pocket during an eventful month long trip throughout the American Southwest when I was age 26.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
                        I was thinking of sciatic nerve damage. That's where I learned about front pockets. Watch someone's hands see if they are right or left handed. That will give you clues where something may be carried. Watch their shoulders which telegraph movement.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
                If ten others in the room open carry, would that make you feel better? Your discomfort goes away the more people get used to it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
                  Oh, heck yeah.
                  I live in Alabama but open carry is still a rare sight.
                  My most notable sighting was over half a year ago in a Walmart.
                  It was a pretty blonde young mama with three little kids. She wore a skirt and a hefty-looking revolver in a holster on her hip. .
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 3 years, 9 months ago
      Not knowing who has a gun (concealed carry) is a far better deterrent- after all the perp woud have no idea who might pull out a gun and shoot him.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 years, 9 months ago
    Open carry here in Oklahoma was put in place to stop all the 9-1-1 calls about "brandishing" from people who felt concealed carry should mean the gun shouldn't be seen, even when a coat is accidentally lifted. It irritates me at how counterproductive the open carry crowd is when they parade around with military weapons hanging all over themselves in locations that inevitably create a spectacle. I put them in the same category as gays who feel a desperate need to make a public display, with groups of near-naked men slobbering all over each other. Those public nuisances aren't to promote a cause, but to rub their ability to cause discomfort in everyone's faces. Both groups seek a negative reaction in order to "win", and harbor the delusion they're serving justice.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
      Interesting comparison. Most people in these gun rights groups just want the freedom to carry according to our preferred tactics (or convenience), not with an intent to cause alarm.

      Sometimes we engage in open carry walks in public. Our intent is not to disgust or offend, but to educate and bring the issue into the public eye as we lobby our political representatives. Here in Texas, long rifles have been (and still are) unregulated, and even without a permit it is legal to carry them openly. That is the reason long rifles have been the open carry tool of choice for us until yesterday. Even still, some people refuse to pay for a Big Government "license to carry" (or they just don't qualify), so they will continue this. But for most of these people, this is only a temporary tactic until we obtain the legal protections desired, and someday we will only carry our usual preferred handgun. Our goal is liberty, Constitutional carry, unlicensed carry.

      And I don't share your experience about other states that do allow open carry. When I recently visited Alaska, Arizona, and Michigan, I did see some people open carrying (not just inadvertent concealed carry fail). They weren't being overt about it; I wouldn't have noticed if I wasn't looking for it. Most people didn't notice (or didn't care).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 years, 9 months ago
        I respect the conviction that the freedom to carry arms is an inherent right, but I might point out that a machete is also theoretically protected under the 2nd amendment, and how many people would feel comfortable seeing a machete-carrying individual walking down their street.

        I have a somewhat schizophrenic emotional reaction to the issue: I first try to think what the effect is on people who haven't been brought up in a family where guns were part of routine life, like I have, and try to avoid scaring them; second, I don't trust our government, and prefer to keep them guessing as to what armaments I may have.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
          Louisville Slugger Junior Size and a spray can of ammonia. or Lysol. Eyes, knees, elbows After that whatever floats your bat. Finish off with a delicate dose of extra hot salsa spray in the face. or wherever the delicate parts are. Baste liberally with bat.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by SBilko 3 years, 9 months ago
    I think the parallel between wedding cakes and open carry is apt. A business owner should beable to legally refuse either one. However, our country is being run by pragmatists who want to regulate based on personal preference and emotion, not logic. So I can feel the open carriers' frustttatin.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
      Yes, as a reductio ad absurdum, I agree. The problem is most of these guys don't see it as absurd. If they were just saying this for the sake of argument, to show that even liberal logic if followed consistently would support open carry. But most of the people making this argument are not just arguing hypothetically. They really do want to use the Big Government guns to force people to allow them to openly carry guns. Rather than take the "if you can't beat'em, join'em" approach, they ought to take a step back, and see that they are pulling the ground out from under themselves. Rather than argue for more "protected classes," they ought to argue for a private property owner's right to discriminate.

      Most people here know this. It's like a breath of fresh air.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 3 years, 9 months ago
    The real reason for the second amendment is to protect us FROM an over-reaching government. Having registration of guns makes having them useless. Any rebellion against a bad government would immediately unleash a gun collection drive on the part of the government and they would know exactly where to go and what there was to find.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 years, 9 months ago
    Still shocked that a private business owner cannot decide who to serve. I think the same rules applicable there are applicable here, and if businesses don't want open carry, then that is their business. Concealed seems like another matter, and much less testable. I suppose when someone protects a restaurant with a concealed weapon. they can ask him to leave.

    I like open carry being legal. Think familiarity with firearms will dispel some of the foolishness. However, I wonder if open carriers will be sufficiently responsible.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
      It's funny. I have met a new friend at one of our open carry walks. He recently moved here from Wisconsin. He says that over there, open carry has been legal and normal for decades. Recently they passed laws legalizing concealed carry, but not without strong opposition. The gun-control extremists argued that concealed carry is dangerous! that it's sneaky, that only someone with suspicious motives would want to conceal carry. Ha! It's just the opposite here in Texas.

      Good point about wondering if they will be responsible. Right now, those who seem to go through the effort of getting a license to carry seem to be responsible. As a class, they have few accidents and crimes than even law enforcement do. But I wonder if this will change when we legalize Constitutional carry. I hope and believe most people will be responsible. But even if they aren't, it's just all the more reason to make sure we are equipped to defend ourselves. Also, I don't think the question of their responsibility has anything to do with open versus concealed carry.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 years, 9 months ago
        It seems to me, that a person open-carrying may need to answer a lot more questions and/or challenges than a person concealed carrying (essentially anyone else). It would be a misstep for those of us advocating for the rights and responsibilities of the many, particularly in the present environment, if such a person carrying was a Walmart fool rather than an informed citizen.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 3 years, 9 months ago
    That's interesting nsnelson. As long as one can grab victim status in America they can get what they want. That's the framework we've established here. Don't these dummies understand that a business owner should be able to choose their clients? Nope. Too advanced a concept.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
      Of course. Choosing to be a client or not is equal to choosing to be a proprietor. Same argument raged over smoking. I don't agree that framework is estabished. It's self-evident.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
      I use a medium frame myself the N frame is a bit too large for my hand. As for pistols the M1911A1 was perfect.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Abaco 3 years, 9 months ago
        I like my big ole Taurus Tracker 357. Great gun.

        Trying to buy a carry gun but it's hard around here. There are long lines at the gun stores. I think the next jihadists who tries to pull off a San Bernadino incident may have bad luck.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 9 months ago
    Some politicians and commentators benefit from a battle of whether gov't will force people to work with gays or people openly carrying guns. Fundraising letters and opinion pieces on these topics are more attention-getting than talking about reducing gov't force in all areas.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fosterj717 3 years, 9 months ago
    The writer is spot on correct. This is still a free country and it is the right of the store owner to say what is and what is not allowed in his establishment. I too am for open and/or concealed carry however not to the point of violating the rights of a private property. If you don't like that you can't carry, open or concealed in an establishment, vote with your feet and don't patronize that establishment! Its that simple.....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mspalding 3 years, 9 months ago
    It makes sense that private property trumps someone's sensibilities. And that I have a right to interact with whomever I chose. But is it okay for a bar to ban Blacks? If I was Black, I wouldn't want to give my money to a business that was racist. But are we okay with businesses banning Blacks, Gays, Folks w/guns, etc.?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 3 years, 9 months ago
      I'm all in favor of legalizing private discrimination, because: (1) If someone wants to discriminate by race/sex/whatever, I'd rather he be able to do so openly, so that the rest of us will know who he is and have the option to stay away. (2) Most complaints of discrimination today, especially by race or sex, are from people who got themselves rightfully fired (or tossed out of a bar or whatever) for bad behavior and either are stupidly assuming race or sex was the reason, or they know better but are lying that that was the reason. Present laws give these whiners a good chance to win against the business. Legalize discrimination and that big problem goes away.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jlc 3 years, 9 months ago
        But, if so, it has to be 'proclaimed'. I cannot be refused a rental car because 'we are all out' when the real reason is that I am a woman.

        If I know ahead of time, I can (a) not patronize that business, (b) make sure my male friends spread the word not to patronize that business.

        Jan

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
    One would like to have a"clean" fight, using only logic and logical debates... However, that is not the world we live in. If the Progressives/Socialists made a bakery an example of discrimination, I think we should use the same weapon back at them, even if we disagree with the premises of that case (property rights). Think of it as using your Jedi light saber to deflect and send back to the attacker whatever crap they've shot at you.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 3 years, 9 months ago
    I think that the problem is that some people just
    go with their emotions rather than thought. I be-
    lieve in an individual's right to carry a gun, con-
    cealed or not--but not on another's property, if the
    owner forbids it. But to believe this requires an
    understanding of the concept of individual
    rights
    , not simply an emotional attachment to
    something, such as a gun. (I think that this
    sometimes manifests itself in certain Southern-
    ers' sentimental attachment to the Confederate
    flag; some of these people may not even really
    have anything against black people, they just
    want their flag, and try to maintain that that
    war wasn't about slavery, etc.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 years, 9 months ago
    The problem as I see it is that most people haven't an inkling as to what freedom is, and how it manifests. All attitudes from the last century to now have been taught with an anti freedom agenda first from religion, then from schools, and followed up by almost everything touted as good when in reality, they are anti-freedom.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Wnston 3 years, 9 months ago
    Inalienable (Constitution) rights supersede personal rights of private business owners.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
      Are you saying a person's right to bear arms supersedes a private business owner's right to make rules barring guns from his store? What if my store is in my house? Are you saying I forfeit my right to make rules for my guests?

      Have you read Ayn Rand's essay against Racism? It's very good. She argues against racism as well as the protected classes in the 1965 Civil Rights Act. The problem with anti-discrimination laws and protected classes is that it violates private property rights. And private property rights are fundamental to all individual rights.

      http://alexpeak.com/twr/racism/

      [It's probably posted elsewhere? But this is the first one I found.]
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
      No such word in the Constitution. Look again.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 3 years, 9 months ago
        Nor is any such word in the Declaration of Independence. The difference between 'unalienable' and 'inalienable' seems to be that an 'inalienable right' can be given up while an 'unalienable right' can not be given up and would protect everyone. Rand seemed to prefer the former since she considered a right as a moral principle and thus as a choice that one has to execute by some freedom of action in a social context.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
          In my youth those words were defined separately for that exact purpose. GAS Citizens didn't think it important. Now they have suspicion of supporting terrorism as a standard for arrest with full suspension of old Bill of Rights versus the old requirement of probable cause with a signed warrant and the whole Bill of rights for protection. I hope those who think that ending was the founders 'intent' choke on it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Wnston 3 years, 9 months ago
        The exact words do not have to be in the Constitution. It's in the intent of the Founders.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
          That GAS attitude is why lawyers are rich and we have a dictator in the White House. 'in the intent' where does it say that? The intent is within that which they wrote. But it's part and parcel of illiteracy being passed off as education these days.

          Follow me on this one. Daniele Steele is a Professor of Social Science at Princeton. She discovered, or so she thought, the Declaration of Independence had been forged by the addition of a period AFTER the signing.

          From this she made the great leap from Declaration to Constitution, from Mission Statement to Operating Manual, and claimed the right to change the meanings and intent of the second document and that in the pursuit of her happiness. -- Or so she thought -- but Ms. Danielle had a problem. A failure in education. She was no English Major much less a grammarian. Neither were her interviewers nor their editors..

          The Document was perfectly punctuated. ending a sentence ...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. -- but Ms. Steele was unable to read English -- and did not recognize something called disambiguity marks. Two dashes as opposed to one dash which sometimes replaces a comma. Disambiguity Marks are placed to denote additional information in support of the main sentence. Second paragraph of the Declaration

          Get a copy of the original manuscript and enlarge it. That's what happens when you take a cavalier attitude and accept a serf's explanation as gospel. Secular or religious it's how some chain others.

          It came to me that the more we accepted that which is not true nor exact especially on the important the truly important parts of our lives and cultures the easier it became to lose them.

          That's now happened.

          All because some said a period wasn't important enough to bother with nor the letter u versus the letter i.

          As of last night you have no civil rights that can't be taken from you on a whim. You have no right to a civil court with all the trimmings if those who told you punctuation and spelling is not important decide to use a military court.

          You have no rights to free and open, without elections

          Good luck that which you counted on by believing in unstated intent - no longer exists. It died yesterday evening.

          I was wrong though. Periods and vowels don't matter., not any more.



          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by Wnston 3 years, 9 months ago
            Babble. If what you say is without question, America was doomed in the hearts and intellect if it's originators. That said, there is a delightful difference between the freedom & liberty os secular government and the true freedom & Liberty found only in Jesus Christ. The first is temporal, while the latter is eternal. Choose yours, for I already have.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jdg 3 years, 9 months ago
          If this were true, discrimination by private business would have been illegal between 1868 (14th Amendment enacted) and 1965. It was not.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by illucio 3 years, 9 months ago
    Gun Control and The Right to Bare Arms is a very Big Deal, especially in Texas. For many, it represents a restraint on government power since, should fires arms be banned for civilians; then it could easily become a "police state" run by force over citizens.

    Gun safety is a problem too, for it´s obvious that death is alot more probable with the use of fire arms. Personally, I can´t help but seing this as a constant threat on safety; since for everyone to have a gun in their pockets; conceiled or not, does post a constant threat.

    In an argument about this I responded "guns don´t kill people, bullets do" and, so as to not go overboard on the whole gun control scene; I proposed an idea that could only be a first step for more tolerance and less danger; changing the ammunition from led to, let´s say; rubber.

    In the Wild West, this probably would´ve been ridiculous. Yet I believe it´s probable to instrument nowadays, in these lawful times. Not to mention that death and murder can become a very serious problem for the executioner, as well as the victim.

    I´m not saying it´s simple to apply, don´t get me wrong. But in a society where guns are a part of their heritage; I feel it might be easier to start this way than to try and ban the use of fire arms altogether. Both legally and as an industry, leaving deadly ammo for war purposes (meanning that this would have to extend to the police force as well). Call me a fool, but I think it´s interesting to take all factors into account; not just the ultimate "they´re dangerous so that´s that". Rubber Bullets, tranquilizers, etc. may be a better way to get things done in the long run. As for the subject at hand; if I were a gun carrier I wouldn´t go showing it around on my waist in order to stand out, despite my intentions about what it may represent. I mean, I´m automatically making myself a target saying "I´m packing". As for the analogy well, I consider it very far fetched.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  edweaver 3 years, 9 months ago
      Yup, I bet the criminals will only use rubber bullets too.

      And what do you mean by "easier to start this way..." So you are actually advocating banning firearms if I read this correctly? Just 1 step at a time. Tell me you were kidding.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
      "Call me a fool" - OK, as you asked. I suggest that you take a good look at the reasons for legitimate lethal force and then ask yourself again how well will non-lethal substitute work?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by illucio 3 years, 9 months ago
      No, I´m not kidding. You guys think shoot to kill is the way to go well; I think that´s your problem right there. A Change in Ammunition (rubber is an example) could cause neutralization of the threat, but I guess that´s because I have respect for the law (you obviously have no respect for life, that´s for sure).

      Yes, I think guns are not the best solution. And if I´m extending the change in ammo to the government well, it means applying it on industry so as to stop selling deadly ammo. But it´s clear that you want to have the right to kill on your own account despite anyone or anything. Use of Brute Force. I´ll stand by ingenuity on my comment, yes. You have to work for real solutions. And "scum" isn´t law of nature, it´s lack of effort.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by illucio 3 years, 9 months ago
        I think Conspiray is a very old idea, so as to avoid government having "the bigger stick" domestically in order to enforce it´s way on civilians. I believe that´s what is being implied here. And, well; it´s more a paranoid fear than a reasonable notion, if you ask me. I can understand the Pro Gun idea but no; I think in a civilized society guns shouldn´t be the way to go. There are very good international examples that this works (an alternative). I think the main problem for the US of North America is one of heritage really; and that old "wild west" notion of individual empowerment.

        To show another perspective; a small group or even an individual can "enforce" himself on others, going as far as holding people ransom and captive agaisnt their will. I believe this is what the main factor is being motioned, to avoid these extremes that; honestly, aren´t really an exception to the rule anymore if you ask me. Again, history speaks for itself.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
          Illucio, I think sometimes your writing is not very clear, and I am not sure I understand your meaning.

          Are you suggesting that only an unreasonable paranoid conspiracy theorist would want the People as strong as the domestic Government? If so, I think you are the one who needs a better look at history. All murderous dictators prefer an unarmed citizenry. Even in our own nation, king George wanted to disarm the colonies. To think this could never happen to us, today, because we are superior - is very naive. Our founding fathers were wise to bequeath to us the second amendment.

          If self-defense requires it, are you against the use of lethal force in general? Or just guns in particular?

          You are against open carry because it makes you a target. Why do you think most professional security guards open carry? Are they just stupid in their understanding of tactics? Or maybe the see a value in it that you don't see. Another thing to think about: Most criminals prefer weak (i.e., unarmed) victims. Look like a victim (because your strong weapon is concealed), become a victim.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by illucio 3 years, 9 months ago
            It's tough to understand, I know. I'm not blaming you for it, but I still stand by what I say. Lethal self defense is inevitable when it's kill or be killed, yet many use the term in order to justify a killing that isn't self defense. Guns are almost as bad as bombs, though there is nothing more awful than the new kinds of weapons (bombs, deadly chemical weapons, etc). Again, I see you fail to understand that I'm suggesting avoiding lethal weapons for both law enforcers and civilians (criminals included, of course). And, well; it obviously won't be easy yet, in a country that thrives itself on firepower well, I'm saying that it's easier to change ammunition rather than take away fire arms altogether, like many wish to do so. A paralizing bullet, for instance; could actually help maintain law and order for mind you get charged and convicted with murder, homicide, man slaughter, etc. and have to do time (for the law can interpret even a true self defense scenario as murder in the second degree, or even in the first). As for the "use of lethal force" well, yes I'm against it in general. And I think to encourage it as the only option to self defense is wrong. I apollogize for not agreeing nsnelson, but I have this idea that violence produces violence.

            As for the subject at hand, yes I would prefer not to show my weapon around for that makes me a mark. I'm stating that as a civilian, it doesn't apply to lawkeepers. I would think that was obvious, but since you didn't get it well, you'd be marked by the law and hence, you could become a target automatically. I'm not saying that open carry shouldn't be allowed, I'm saying I'd rather keep my business to myself and not expose myself automatically, in any given scenario. A detective, for instance; would get my point inmediately.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
              I don't understand either viewpoint. Concealment means less nervous people around you and also provides element of surprise. Deadly Force? What you going to do a warning shot or wound them? The only questions to ponder are was my site picture and trigger squeeze acceptable followed by cleaning and reloading. all that other crap should have been settled before you filled out the paperwork. If it isn't you have no business carrying.

              It's a tool. Treat it with the respect due any tool.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by illucio 3 years, 9 months ago
                Tool of Death
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
                  That what you people wanted thats what you trained and used me for. That's why i've been drawing retirement pay longer than the time on active duty....you got what you asked for quit crying. Come to think of it most of the above was put in place and funded and used by the left. Just like the new protective echelon. If it weren't for the left including the RINOs the military would have been comfortable defending the borders...You pays for your ticket don't complain about whose driving the bus.

                  Sight Picture its a double entendre with either spelling. Where I'm coming from, What I'm looking at.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo