Open Carry vs. Racism
Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 3 months ago to Legislation
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...
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...
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.
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?
Jan
television was "chewing gum for the eyes." -- j
.
Jan
(But a number of computers)
a ham handy-talkie (15 minutes) than from hours of
football, lately.
and, of course, the latter arrived on tv. -- j
.
radios, and that was the subject of the video ... these
radios do not have good owners' manuals. -- j
.
.
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.
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
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!"
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
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.
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
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.)
Jan
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.
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.
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. .
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.
I would not mind seeing a lot of open carries around me.
Never have. Just a rare one person,
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!!"
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. .
There's that comfort factor too.
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.
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.
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. .
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).
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.
Most people here know this. It's like a breath of fresh air.
Stinking Rules. . Why? . Conformity Sucks! -- j
.
But these signs are only temporary:
"There was an initial surge in "No Handguns" signs on businesses that had been convinced the knuckle-dragging CHLs would invade in their camo clothing, tromping through stores in muddy boots spitting tobacco everywhere and running decent customers away. Instead, it was the decent customers who politely informed store owners that unless the signs came down their business would go elsewhere. Six months later "No Handguns" signs were an endangered species."
www.txchia.org/history.htm
Jan
and never reveal it until The Time Arrives. -- j
.
nearby wings the guy. . I wish. -- j
.
Jan
be fine to carry concealed without a permit. . maybe
this is turning into that world. -- j
.
Jan
seriously what I carry in my pockets. . if I am a karate
master, I am ready to defend myself. . if I have a
pistol, I am as well. . what business is it of theirs? -- j
.
Jan
.
Jan
goes wanting ....... -- j
.
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.
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.
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.
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
http://alexpeak.com/twr/racism/
[It's probably posted elsewhere? But this is the first one I found.]
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.)
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.]
And will you answer my questions in the order asked? If not, I wonder why.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's a tool. Treat it with the respect due any tool.
Sight Picture its a double entendre with either spelling. Where I'm coming from, What I'm looking at.